(01-10-2014 05:28 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(01-09-2014 11:01 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(01-09-2014 07:05 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(01-09-2014 05:05 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(01-09-2014 02:10 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  Don't agree that Kimmo wasn't a very good Sun Belt player. Don't remember who posted that. I know it wasn't mjs. I agree with insider that he was probably the missing link on Graber's team.

I've noticed that the only UALR coaches that mjs thinks that were any good were Shields, Platt and Kestenbaum. The others, Newell, Porter, Wimp, and Sidney(we agree on this one) weren't very good. Probably mediocre or bad(Sidney).

I never saw Kestenbaum coach but I have seen his record, and it was very good. Obviously did a good job here under dire circumstances, despite driving a Pinto. Never mentions that Shields got off to a pretty good start with Porter's recruits, then things started going downhill as he had to play with his own recruits. Doesn't mention that Platt came in after five 20 win seasons in a row under Newell, and couldn't win despite being a surprisingly good recruiter. I can't remember, but I'm sure he probably has mentioned a few times that Newell probably left the cubbard empty. But, he does often mention that Wimp won simply because of Platt's recruits. I'm sure it didn't have anything to do with Wimp being a pretty fair coach to begin with.

And what is most surprisingly about this is that I know that Mickey is very knowledgeable about basketball. Just doesn't like certain coaches I guess.

Newell did an excellent job while he was here. Never said he didn't Wimp was probably the best floor coach we ever had here. I don't care that he did it with Platt's players anymore than I care that Steve did it with Porter's players. Porter and Platt couldn't do any better than mediocre while they were here. That's all that matters. We don't know whether Porter or Platt would have ever won here with their players, only that they didn't. I don't dislike any of our ex-coaches. The only thing I don't like is idolizing coaches once they move on to "bigger and better" things especially when the bigger and better things never panned out. Porter is a well below .500 coach since he left. The only point I've tried to make about Newell (apparently not very well) is- If he was that great a coach, there would be one DI AD in the country who would have figured that out after he left Lamar. Bob, I know you would have hired him- but no DI AD, who is paid to hire winning coaches, has done so. That tells me a lot.

And you compare Platt and Porter by calling both mediocre. You call Porter's record mediocre? No comparison. Damn right I'd hire Newell in a moment . I don't know why no AD in the country would hire him. Couldn't be the same reasons they won't hire Shields.

Porter is well below mediocre. As I mentioned above his best conference record ever is 8-6. His overall record is well below .500. If we throw out the 3 nonDI wins (as some like to do) he got here every year, it would be a lot worse.

Jim Platt doesn't compare to Porter Moser as a coach. I'm also basing my opinion on what they did in LR. Name one person on this board who agrees with you on this one.

I couldn't find anywhere that I compared Platt and Porter. Maybe I did say neither has been particularly successful in the win-loss department. Never said Platt was a better coach than Porter.

(01-10-2014 05:54 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(01-09-2014 05:05 PM)mjs Wrote:  Newell did an excellent job while he was here. Never said he didn't Wimp was probably the best floor coach we ever had here. I don't care that he did it with Platt's players anymore than I care that Steve did it with Porter's players. Porter and Platt couldn't do any better than mediocre while they were here. That's all that matters. We don't know whether Porter or Platt would have ever won here with their players, only that they didn't. I don't dislike any of our ex-coaches. The only thing I don't like is idolizing coaches once they move on to "bigger and better" things especially when the bigger and better things never panned out. Porter is a well below .500 coach since he left.

Porter is well below mediocre. As I mentioned above his best conference record ever is 8-6. His overall record is well below .500. If we throw out the 3 nonDI wins (as some like to do) he got here every year, it would be a lot worse.

I couldn't find anywhere that I compared Platt and Porter. Maybe I did say neither has been particularly successful in the win-loss department. Never said Platt was a better coach than Porter.
[/quote]

I helped you find it. It's up about three or four post and I highlighted it for you. Where do you get that neither was successful? Porter was 54-34 at .613. Platt was 55-60 at .487. I'd say Porter was a little better than mediocre, and Platt was somewhat less.

(01-10-2014 11:47 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(01-10-2014 05:54 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(01-09-2014 05:05 PM)mjs Wrote:  Newell did an excellent job while he was here. Never said he didn't Wimp was probably the best floor coach we ever had here. I don't care that he did it with Platt's players anymore than I care that Steve did it with Porter's players. Porter and Platt couldn't do any better than mediocre while they were here. That's all that matters. We don't know whether Porter or Platt would have ever won here with their players, only that they didn't. I don't dislike any of our ex-coaches. The only thing I don't like is idolizing coaches once they move on to "bigger and better" things especially when the bigger and better things never panned out. Porter is a well below .500 coach since he left.

Porter is well below mediocre. As I mentioned above his best conference record ever is 8-6. His overall record is well below .500. If we throw out the 3 nonDI wins (as some like to do) he got here every year, it would be a lot worse.

I couldn't find anywhere that I compared Platt and Porter. Maybe I did say neither has been particularly successful in the win-loss department. Never said Platt was a better coach than Porter.

I helped you find it. It's up about three or four post and I highlighted it for you. Where do you get that neither was successful? Porter was 54-34 at .613. Platt was 55-60 at .487. I'd say Porter was a little better than mediocre, and Platt was somewhat less.
[/quote]

Just like with Newell, I am talking about Porter's body of work. His career record is 133-149. Much worse than Steve, who you like to call "mediocre". So what is worse than mediocre? Even if you look at his record at UALR, his best conference record (which is all that really matters to me) was 8-6. That's not mediocre, but Steve going 11-7 last year is? The man-love for Newell I certainly understand simply based on what he accomplished for our program. But I don't understand folks being enamored with Porter who has not had a better than .500 record in 7 years of DI coaching since he left UALR. Although, Jim Platt was the only coach we ever had that I would consider a "friend" (he was my next door neighbor) I did not disagree with Hamrick's decision to fire him (although I certainly did not lobby to have him fired and would never do that to one of our coaches). Firing and hiring coaches is the job of the AD. As a fan, my "job" is to support the team and the coach. I will support Steve as long as he is here, and I'll support who ever replaces him at some point in the future.

In answer to your original question, he should get at least five years. Any coach should be granted the chance to have his recruits as seniors.

(01-11-2014 01:37 AM)mjs Wrote:  Just like with Newell, I am talking about Porter's body of work. His career record is 133-149. Much worse than Steve, who you like to call "mediocre". So what is worse than mediocre? Even if you look at his record at UALR, his best conference record (which is all that really matters to me) was 8-6. That's not mediocre, but Steve going 11-7 last year is? The man-love for Newell I certainly understand simply based on what he accomplished for our program. But I don't understand folks being enamored with Porter who has not had a better than .500 record in 7 years of DI coaching since he left UALR. Although, Jim Platt was the only coach we ever had that I would consider a "friend" (he was my next door neighbor) I did not disagree with Hamrick's decision to fire him (although I certainly did not lobby to have him fired and would never do that to one of our coaches). Firing and hiring coaches is the job of the AD. As a fan, my "job" is to support the team and the coach. I will support Steve as long as he is here, and I'll support who ever replaces him at some point in the future.

I'm talking about what they did in Little Rock. That's why I don't have an opinion on Kestenbaum. Never saw the man coach or never ever saw him shopping at Walmart. I never saw any of these guys coach after they left here, with the exception of two of UAM's games at Philander Smith. Now, let's talk Little Rock. Was Porter Moser a mediocre coach or below as you've stated, in Little Rock? How about Platt in LR? Since we can only judge Shields on his LR record, yes, in LR he's been very mediocre. The proof is in the pudding as they say. And I don't think you can find more than one or two, on this board anyway, who think any different. I concede that you may well be right about all these former Trojan coaches on overall records, but let's just discuss their LR coaching.

I agree with an ASU supporter who said recently when they were searching for a coach. I'm paraphrasing somewhat but what he essentially said is that a coach at a mid-major program who stays longer than 4 years usually is not a winner.

(01-11-2014 01:37 AM)mjs Wrote:  

(01-10-2014 11:47 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(01-10-2014 05:54 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(01-09-2014 05:05 PM)mjs Wrote:  Newell did an excellent job while he was here. Never said he didn't Wimp was probably the best floor coach we ever had here. I don't care that he did it with Platt's players anymore than I care that Steve did it with Porter's players. Porter and Platt couldn't do any better than mediocre while they were here. That's all that matters. We don't know whether Porter or Platt would have ever won here with their players, only that they didn't. I don't dislike any of our ex-coaches. The only thing I don't like is idolizing coaches once they move on to "bigger and better" things especially when the bigger and better things never panned out. Porter is a well below .500 coach since he left.

Porter is well below mediocre. As I mentioned above his best conference record ever is 8-6. His overall record is well below .500. If we throw out the 3 nonDI wins (as some like to do) he got here every year, it would be a lot worse.

I couldn't find anywhere that I compared Platt and Porter. Maybe I did say neither has been particularly successful in the win-loss department. Never said Platt was a better coach than Porter.

I helped you find it. It's up about three or four post and I highlighted it for you. Where do you get that neither was successful? Porter was 54-34 at .613. Platt was 55-60 at .487. I'd say Porter was a little better than mediocre, and Platt was somewhat less.

Just like with Newell, I am talking about Porter's body of work. His career record is 133-149. Much worse than Steve, who you like to call "mediocre". So what is worse than mediocre? Even if you look at his record at UALR, his best conference record (which is all that really matters to me) was 8-6. That's not mediocre, but Steve going 11-7 last year is? The man-love for Newell I certainly understand simply based on what he accomplished for our program. But I don't understand folks being enamored with Porter who has not had a better than .500 record in 7 years of DI coaching since he left UALR. Although, Jim Platt was the only coach we ever had that I would consider a "friend" (he was my next door neighbor) I did not disagree with Hamrick's decision to fire him (although I certainly did not lobby to have him fired and would never do that to one of our coaches). Firing and hiring coaches is the job of the AD. As a fan, my "job" is to support the team and the coach. I will support Steve as long as he is here, and I'll support who ever replaces him at some point in the future.
[/quote]




Man-love?

(01-11-2014 10:53 AM)DollarBill Wrote:  I agree with an ASU supporter who said recently when they were searching for a coach. I'm paraphrasing somewhat but what he essentially said is that a coach at a mid-major program who stays longer than 4 years usually is not a winner.

Bingo

(01-11-2014 11:15 AM)insideualr Wrote:  

(01-11-2014 10:53 AM)DollarBill Wrote:  I agree with an ASU supporter who said recently when they were searching for a coach. I'm paraphrasing somewhat but what he essentially said is that a coach at a mid-major program who stays longer than 4 years usually is not a winner.

Bingo

So we agree that Maestri at Troy stayed about 7 times too long (27 years)?

(01-11-2014 11:30 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  So we agree that Maestri at Troy stayed about 7 times too long (27 years)?

Maestri's situation was a little different. He had a huge resume Troy before they became D1.

(01-08-2014 11:59 PM)mjs Wrote:  As of tonight his record there is 28-48 and 7-30 in conference play. He got an extension last year, but not sure what that means now days. In 10 years as a head coach his best conference record was 8-6 at UALR. He hasn't been close to .500 at Illinois State or Loyola. It's amazing to me that some of the same folks who complain about Steve being "mediocre" pine over a coach whose overall record is well below .500 and showed absolutely no improvement in his 3 years here. To each his own.

If he has an AD like Chris, he'll be there forever!

If a good young coach comes in and has some talent, he may have quick success. But if he has to build from the ground up in a tough conference, it is going to take a while longer.

(01-11-2014 11:37 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 11:59 PM)mjs Wrote:  As of tonight his record there is 28-48 and 7-30 in conference play. He got an extension last year, but not sure what that means now days. In 10 years as a head coach his best conference record was 8-6 at UALR. He hasn't been close to .500 at Illinois State or Loyola. It's amazing to me that some of the same folks who complain about Steve being "mediocre" pine over a coach whose overall record is well below .500 and showed absolutely no improvement in his 3 years here. To each his own.

If he has an AD like Chris, he'll be there forever!

That's not true at all. Chris did not hesitate in firing 2 losing baseball coaches, 2 losing soccer coaches, and a losing women's basketball coach. He has clearly shown he will not tolerate losing coaches.

(01-11-2014 11:44 AM)mjs Wrote:  

(01-11-2014 11:37 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 11:59 PM)mjs Wrote:  As of tonight his record there is 28-48 and 7-30 in conference play. He got an extension last year, but not sure what that means now days. In 10 years as a head coach his best conference record was 8-6 at UALR. He hasn't been close to .500 at Illinois State or Loyola. It's amazing to me that some of the same folks who complain about Steve being "mediocre" pine over a coach whose overall record is well below .500 and showed absolutely no improvement in his 3 years here. To each his own.

If he has an AD like Chris, he'll be there forever!

That's not true at all. Chris did not hesitate in firing 2 losing baseball coaches, 2 losing soccer coaches, and a losing women's basketball coach. He has clearly shown he will not tolerate losing coaches.

If they could have just been mediocre, they would still be here. Their mistake was losing really big on a consistent basis. 4 wins in a basketball season doesn't allow you to keep your job in many places. I don't really keep up with baseball and those communist sports.

I said "usually". There will always be exceptions. The thinking is that after 4 or 5 years if a coach has not demonstrated he or she is a winner, larger programs with deeper pockets are not likely to be interested.

(01-11-2014 12:49 PM)DollarBill Wrote:  I said "usually". There will always be exceptions. The thinking is that after 4 or 5 years if a coach has not demonstrated he or she is a winner, larger programs with deeper pockets are not likely to be interested.

If you want to coach at a big time program, it's easier coming from a big time program as an assistant rather than a smaller division. Obviously there are exceptions, but good young top assistants at a Top 20 program are usually more in demand than coaches at D2 or even low mid majors. John Pelphrey got a chance at Arkansas, not only because of his success at South Alabama but because of his Kentucky and Florida pedigrees. And he'll get another chance. Bobby Petrino did!

(01-11-2014 01:42 PM)outsideualr Wrote:  [If you want to coach at a big time program, it's easier coming from a big time program as an assistant rather than a smaller division. Obviously there are exceptions, but good young top assistants at a Top 20 program are usually more in demand than coaches at D2 or even low mid majors. John Pelphrey got a chance at Arkansas, not only because of his success at South Alabama but because of his Kentucky and Florida pedigrees. And he'll get another chance. Bobby Petrino did!

I'm sure he will, and probably deserves it. He does have the pedigree, but he won't get another chance as a head coach because he wins a lot of games like Petrino did. Maybe it was because Petrino is an experienced motorcycle rider.