(12-05-2013 09:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  a toxic, and potentially vindictive former assistant that may have done a very good job of hiding his true colors during the interview process.

The specific mode of failure was impossible to predict, but there should have been little doubt that hiring Morcos would end badly for Rice.

(Greenspan, too, though as you noted that wasn't Braun's doing. Tip for Emory: don't let Forman choose your next AD.)

(12-05-2013 11:21 AM)That Guy 2012 Wrote:  Prior to last year, players who left were of little consequence. It's par for the course in basketball these days to force out the lowest producing scholarship players to spec on incoming frosh, if the staff believes that they will be more useful.

Which belies the claim that Braun has done very well at recruiting. Bringing in a handful of good players who mostly transfer out, and a slew of others who aren't even good enough to keep, adds up to sure failure.

I have a hard time hashing out my feelings about the path we should take with Braun.

On one hand, we had only had one +.500 season in his tenure, and in the end, the buck stops with him.

On the other hand, he had to deal with a potentially racist-remark making AD that he had no major hand in hiring, as well as a toxic, and potentially vindictive former assistant that may have done a very good job of hiding his true colors during the interview process.

Braun has both gotten me extremely excited for Rice MBB, and extremely depressed because of Rice MBB.
[/quote]


+1

Losing to HBU is not acceptable. But, I like the talent of the freshmen, and Washington seems to have developed since last year. The freshman year of Harris and McKrieth, the team had a bad record, and was not competitive in several road games. In contrast, last year's squad and this year's team appears to compete every night, notwithstanding some poor results.

So, if the team keeps competing, if guys continue to develop, and there are enough Ws in conference play to indicate that there might be hope for a winning [post-season worthy?] team next year, I'd have no problem with Braun leading the squad for at least another season. But, if the results aren't any better by February or March, I wouldn't shed a tear if Dr. K. decides to go in a different direction.

(12-05-2013 11:21 AM)That Guy 2012 Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 11:13 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 11:05 AM)07owl Wrote:  I'd be fine with letting Braun go...losses like these are unacceptable. I do worry about losing his recruiting ability, though; that's one area in which he's done very well

recruiting players that don't stay is not recruiting in my book. His record is horrendous and was so even before last years disaster.

Prior to last year, players who left were of little consequence. It's par for the course in basketball these days to force out the lowest producing scholarship players to spec on incoming frosh, if the staff believes that they will be more useful.

Agree, the conflation of cases like Dylan Ennis and AJ Holland bothers me.

But I think it's also clear Braun has exacerbated this; at least one of the "good" freshmen left because of unhappiness with playing time, and he was probably fully justified in that. Every one of the high-talent underclassmen was underutilized in 2011/12.

(12-05-2013 12:32 PM)Owl Movement Wrote:  So, if the team keeps competing, if guys continue to develop, and there are enough Ws in conference play to indicate that there might be hope for a winning [post-season worthy?] team next year, I'd have no problem with Braun leading the squad for at least another season.

Given that we have lost--albeit close--to Rider, SE Louisiana, and HBU, what is the over/under for conference wins?

(12-05-2013 02:27 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  Given that we have lost--albeit close--to Rider, SE Louisiana, and HBU, what is the over/under for conference wins?

0.5?

The Wilson era really killed fan interest in Rice MBB. Unfortunately, Tudor Field House and Braun have not been able to reverse that. The 17-15 team was fun to watch, but going to the games was depressing because the crowds were so small. It had to be hard on the players. I have always wondered how much of the first round of transfers (before K&O) was driven by a desire to play some place where people actually showed up to watch them.

For the last several years, I'm pretty sure that the average crowd in <25% of capacity. That has got to be a barrier to recruiting and retaining players. It seems to me that we need a few years with good teams to get the crowds back and we need good crowds to draw good player.

Chicken/Egg.

(12-05-2013 02:27 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 12:32 PM)Owl Movement Wrote:  So, if the team keeps competing, if guys continue to develop, and there are enough Ws in conference play to indicate that there might be hope for a winning [post-season worthy?] team next year, I'd have no problem with Braun leading the squad for at least another season.

Given that we have lost--albeit close--to Rider, SE Louisiana, and HBU, what is the over/under for conference wins?

For me it's four.

I think that we are superior to FAU, FIU, Tulane, and UTSA. I would guess we win three of those four, and one other as an underdog.

Rider and Santa Clara are several steps ahead of all four of that group, with Texas A&M well above both of them. Despite yesterday's loss (one the two last games before finals- typically one of if not the worst games of the season for the Owls since I started to follow), this is a team pointed in the right direction.

(12-05-2013 02:53 PM)temchugh Wrote:  The Wilson era really killed fan interest in Rice MBB. Unfortunately, Tudor Field House and Braun have not been able to reverse that. The 17-15 team was fun to watch, but going to the games was depressing because the crowds were so small. It had to be hard on the players. I have always wondered how much of the first round of transfers (before K&O) was driven by a desire to play some place where people actually showed up to watch them.

For the last several years, I'm pretty sure that the average crowd in <25% of capacity. That has got to be a barrier to recruiting and retaining players. It seems to me that we need a few years with good teams to get the crowds back and we need good crowds to draw good player.

Chicken/Egg.

We need a young coach with an outgoing personality... a version of Mike Schuler or Scott Thompson.

If Braun hired Marcos, he should be held responsible for any problems Marcos caused. If you are in command of a unit in the military, you are ultimately responsible for the actions of your subordinates, most of whom you had no choice in picking. So if Braun actually hired Marcos, (I do not know if he did, but I suspect that is the case), then he is responsible for Marcos' actions.

(12-05-2013 03:55 PM)Ranger Wrote:  If Braun hired Marcos, he should be held responsible for any problems Marcos caused. If you are in command of a unit in the military, you are ultimately responsible for the actions of your subordinates, most of whom you had no choice in picking. So if Braun actually hired Marcos, (I do not know if he did, but I suspect that is the case), then he is responsible for Marcos' actions.

I don't disagree that Braun is "responsible," or should be "accountable," for things that happened on his watch.

But, in deciding whether he should be retained past this season, the focus should be on the prospect for future success. Past failure is certainly relevant to this inquiry, but if there is otherwise reason to believe that he can deliver much better things in a relatively short time, I wouldn't favor firing him for his past failures (including those caused at least in part by a slimy subordinate and an ignorant boss).

If I were Rice AD and was considering head basketball coaches that should be fired due to length of tenure without tangible on-court success, Braun would not be at the very top of my list.

(12-05-2013 02:27 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 12:32 PM)Owl Movement Wrote:  So, if the team keeps competing, if guys continue to develop, and there are enough Ws in conference play to indicate that there might be hope for a winning [post-season worthy?] team next year, I'd have no problem with Braun leading the squad for at least another season.

Given that we have lost--albeit close--to Rider, SE Louisiana, and HBU, what is the over/under for conference wins?

5

(12-05-2013 05:34 PM)Owl Movement Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 03:55 PM)Ranger Wrote:  If Braun hired Marcos, he should be held responsible for any problems Marcos caused. If you are in command of a unit in the military, you are ultimately responsible for the actions of your subordinates, most of whom you had no choice in picking. So if Braun actually hired Marcos, (I do not know if he did, but I suspect that is the case), then he is responsible for Marcos' actions.

I don't disagree that Braun is "responsible," or should be "accountable," for things that happened on his watch.

But, in deciding whether he should be retained past this season, the focus should be on the prospect for future success. Past failure is certainly relevant to this inquiry, but if there is otherwise reason to believe that he can deliver much better things in a relatively short time, I wouldn't favor firing him for his past failures (including those caused at least in part by a slimy subordinate and an ignorant boss).

If I were Rice AD and was considering head basketball coaches that should be fired due to length of tenure without tangible on-court success, Braun would not be at the very top of my list.

Excellent post. But Braun has been here a number of years now, and we are where we are. We keep hearing things are about to turn the corner, but that corner seems to slip farther away as we approach it. Given that, I am not optimistic that he will bring us better things. I think expectations for him or based more on hope that on reality, and "hope is not a method".

Also, I do not recall his salary, but I believe we are paying a fortune for him. It is not like we are paying him 80k and expecting great things.

(12-05-2013 03:00 PM)That Guy 2012 Wrote:  this is a team pointed in the right direction.

Can you bottle that optimism and sell it on E-bay?

(12-05-2013 02:53 PM)temchugh Wrote:  I have always wondered how much of the first round of transfers (before K&O) was driven by a desire to play some place where people actually showed up to watch them.
Chicken/Egg.

I'm not inclined to buy this argument, for three reasons.

1. Lots of the 300+ D-1 programs in the country don't draw any fans. Do they routinely lose 80% of their signees before senior year? Is there any statistical correlation between attendance and player retention?

2. That signing class certainly knew that we didn't draw. Logic says if they were motivated by attendance, they would have checked attendance and then signed somewhere that drew. They signed with us, ergo I premise that they didn't care that much about attendance or were brash enough (with reason) to believe that they would turn the program around and get it fixed.

3. empirically, we drew 1742 last year for one of the worst teams in the country. Florida Gulf Coast (DeBose) drew 2200 for a Sweet Sixteen team. Rhode Island (Reichelle) drew 4300 in a building that holds 7700.

(12-05-2013 03:02 PM)Memphis Owl Wrote:  We need a young coach with an outgoing personality... a version of Mike Schuler or Scott Thompson.

Thinking back on how Scott Thompson generated such excitement on campus, I realize that one of the main things he did was really, really simple: he got up in front of any student gathering he could find and said essentially the following: "Hi, I'm Scott Thompson, I coach our basketball team, and I want you to come to our games. We may not win all our games, but we're going to play exciting basketball, and we're gonna make people stand up and take notice. And I want you to come and be loud and make Autry Court a place that other teams hate to come to."
He did this at meals at the colleges, at SA meetings, at college cabinet meetings, at the Pub -- just about anywhere he could find a sizeable group of students who would let him have five minutes. He climbed up on tables in the commons and on the bar at the Pub.

It wasn't complicated -- but it was fresh, it was consistent, and it worked.

I'm not saying that all coaches should take this approach. For one thing, a person can't do this successfully unless at some level they actually like doing it -- and there are many outstanding coaches and leaders who do not. But for someone who is good at it, it's a simple and effective approach.

(12-05-2013 03:02 PM)Memphis Owl Wrote:  We need a young coach with an outgoing personality... a version of Mike Schuler or Scott Thompson.

Mike Schuler? Outgoing personality?

I'll strongly agree with Thompson.

(12-05-2013 06:06 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 03:02 PM)Memphis Owl Wrote:  We need a young coach with an outgoing personality... a version of Mike Schuler or Scott Thompson.

Mike Schuler? Outgoing personality?

I'll strongly agree with Thompson.

I have very fond memories of Clown Night. The chant "It's a Circus" still resonates ... along with memories of the infamous 10 point play.

Schuler's quiet approach generated confidence and it was rewarded with enthusiasm. He was helped by known rivalry's with UH (who we had never beaten and the public ridicule from Davalos and Dempsey) and Texas (esp. Abe Lemons). For some reason Eddie Sutton's Razorbacks were respected.

(12-05-2013 06:14 PM)Memphis Owl Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 06:06 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 03:02 PM)Memphis Owl Wrote:  We need a young coach with an outgoing personality... a version of Mike Schuler or Scott Thompson.

Mike Schuler? Outgoing personality?

I'll strongly agree with Thompson.

I have very fond memories of Clown Night. The chant "It's a Circus" still resonates ... along with memories of the infamous 10 point play.

Schuler's quiet approach generated confidence and it was rewarded with enthusiasm. He was helped by known rivalry's with UH (who we had never beaten and the public ridicule from Davalos and Dempsey) and Texas (esp. Abe Lemons). For some reason Eddie Sutton's Razorbacks were respected.

I know. I was there for all of the moments you mentioned.

But I wouldn't describe Schuler as having an outgoing personality.

(12-05-2013 12:58 PM)At Ease Wrote:  Agree, the conflation of cases like Dylan Ennis and AJ Holland bothers me.

Well, they are different in on-court productivity while at Rice (and in their reasons for leaving).

But ultimately they are the same in that neither represents the way to build the program. From 2008-2011 Braun recruited 16 players. 13 of them transferred out (or just left the team), mostly after only one season. I don't care how you categorize them, that is a sure recipe for failure.

(12-05-2013 10:08 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  I saw Kazemi and Oraby play at a tourney game in Vegas a few years ago, and the actual game play was so terrible it didn't even look like basketball at many times. They were young, but my impression was that Kazemi was highly overrated... Kazemi had nothing as far as a shot beyond arm's length reach of the basket, so his utility was limited.

He averaged a double-double his sophomore and junior years then led Oregon to the Sweet Sixteen. "Limited" is not how I would describe his utility.

The problem started well before WW got here. Bob Polk was a complete disaster in the late 1970s and there were some games that only drew 500. Suits did not do too well. Schuler and Thompson improved the program but were not around long enough. Our last championship was under Knodel in 1970 and that was an upset at the time.

(12-05-2013 02:53 PM)temchugh Wrote:  The Wilson era really killed fan interest in Rice MBB. Unfortunately, Tudor Field House and Braun have not been able to reverse that. The 17-15 team was fun to watch, but going to the games was depressing because the crowds were so small. It had to be hard on the players. I have always wondered how much of the first round of transfers (before K&O) was driven by a desire to play some place where people actually showed up to watch them.

For the last several years, I'm pretty sure that the average crowd in <25% of capacity. That has got to be a barrier to recruiting and retaining players. It seems to me that we need a few years with good teams to get the crowds back and we need good crowds to draw good player.

Chicken/Egg.