I'll take the experts' views on the hire....
- Thread starter Jim_from_RU
- Start date
So wil I, but back on point, he only needed American East talent at Stoneybrook but they didn't even have that when he got there. And, as to our football team being in better shape than the basketball, I agree, but it has been described by commentators on both ESPN and BTN as a dumpster fire. Both coaches have an uphill climb but I am not willing to write off their recruiting chances. Coach P can use the area (proximity to NYC, which is a good basketball town), the future facility plans, and a chance to get minutes almost immediately. Who knows, maybe coach Calhoun goes with him on a recruiting trip or two. If he connects with the NJ coaches things can turn around in a hurry. NJ is a great recruiting area for both sports.
You sell what you have to sell. If you have a great record behind you, you sell the record. If you don't have a great record, you basically sell who you are. Pikiell needs to be able to sit in some living rooms and convince moms and dads that he is the best person to bring their son along at the college level. We are not likely to get NBA bound types at the beginning. We need kids just below that level. If we get one at an NBA level, it will be a bonus.
Next year and the year after, there may not be a whole lot of recruiting. We need to do well with the players we have, some of whom look like they may be pretty talented with strong coaching. We need to play like a well-coached team, put away the lower OOC teams, and look competitive in the B1G. If we can do that, and if Pikiell develops a rep as a players' coach and somebody you want to send your 3* kid to, then we might make the climb up the ladder.
Step one is to have a press conference where Pikiell sells himself to the RU and NJ basketball communities. Step two is an impressive staff. Step two A is keeping the kids we need to keep.
Hey, one other thing. Pikiell really seems to understand what it means to be part of a university community. Seems like an incredibly high character guy.
Seels, some of what you are saying has merit, BUT, there have been countless examples of coaches turning losing programs around or building one from the ground up. You sell what you have to sell honestly. You look for the type of player who wants to make a program great rather than join one already up there. It can happen and there is no formula for identifying the coach who can do it. Hopefully Hobbs has a feel for what it takes and has found two guys who can make it happen. I have faith. But, then again, I am a long suffering Met, Jet, Net fan so what do I know. Although the Mets and Jets may be on the right track.
Dp, this is a special situation though, even the worst major conference programs had something to fall back on, whether it was currently there or it was coming. We don't have that. The kids he recruits right now will be playing their careers in the worst facilities in the power 5 conferences. Essentially kids he gets will be because they will be playing for him, not for Rutgers. I think its one of those things we will agree to disagree.
You can find those opinions on just about any thread you chose on this board.
I suggest you go by my views and disregard the so called experts that are ranting and raving
about how they feel about the issues facing RU and not bowing down to my expertise on everything involving basketball and Rutgers.
So even if he continues to bring in the same level players we have at least he can actually coach them. So there a plus.
This is the most important sentence, and this is the second most:
We got an excellent x's and o's coach who stresses offense AND defense.
I just read Carino's latest article and he says Hurley was offered 6 years at $9 million -- that's only $1.5 million per year. Pinkiel will make $1.6 million, so I'm not too sure about there being "plenty of money." If Carino is accurate, I doubt it.
I believe NJHOOPSHAVEN has an article with about 10 tweets from the "experts". All positive.
They had a new facility in 2014. $21 million dollars was raised. That is something to sell.
Having been to a few games at the new arena, I have to say I was impressed with it. 4K seats and very comfortable. Stony Brook is a very good academic school especially in the Math and sciences, they do have something to sell. They have really built up the campus in the past 6-7 years and they have supported the sports programs, including Baseball getting to college WS. The challenge Pikiell is going to have is that Stony Brook had the best facilities in their conference but he is going to a place where they have the worst in the conference.
The guy can coach, I have seen it first hand, but can he get the players, like always that is the million $$ question.
This is precisely why I feel the way I do. Pikiell seems like a GREAT guy with a GREAT pedigree. But with how far behind the curve Rutgers is, it's not enough. If this guy succeeds here, he'll go down as one of the greatest college coaches ever because of the job that he is being handed. It's almost as if he fails, he was destined to because the cards were that stacked against him. I think our dismay at the hiring has less to do with Pikiell himself and more to do with the situation here that truly only a few could fix.
So who would you have hired?
There is not a candidate discussed here - Hurley, Lonergan, Masielo, Sendek, Boyle, any of the assistants from big time programs - that didn't have flaws/concerns
I understand not loving this choice...but I don't get, or agree, with the posters saying there are home run choices out there that Hobbs whiffed on. If they are...who are they???
Herb Sendek and Travis Ford are the two I would have been most for. I didn't want any part of Lonergan, Masiello or Boyle.
I agree. I also would have made phone calls to Kevin Stallings and Jaimie Dixon. If Hobbs was insistent at hiring an assistant from a major program, I think Jeff Capel would have a chance to fix this, although I would have really preferred the other 4.
For the most part, I take neither.
Think about it. There are dozens and dozens of athletic directors across this country, some good ones at good schools, who have made bad coaching hires. There are dozens and dozens of coaches, some at good schools, who have signed bad recruits.
If even they get it wrong a lot, there's no reason to take the evaluation of, for instance, a high school coach on whether a newly hired coach will succeed. Existing college coaches almost always say nice things about another coach, whether he was just hired or just fired. And coaches, administrators and former players from the newly hired coach's past always praise him. So there's usually little to learn from their reactions.
The reaction pieces in the day's surrounding a new coach's hire can be some of the most useless sports-page reading there is. Most of us could write the articles and just make up the names.
And message boards are message boards.
We'll know in a few years.
Last edited:
He was instrumental in getting those facilities done. He should be able to do it again.
How have the so called experts done with previous hires?This is a message board with fans who are tired of losing and being a bottom tier basketball program.Nobody knows if the new head coach will improve recruiting to such a level where Rutgers can be successful in the B1G.In other words there is high risk with whoever took the position based on the problems to be overcome.
I'd still like an explanation from the guys who think Pikiell can't possibly recruit at this level. Com'on now don't be shy!
Yeah that is what I kinda thought... Given this void I just might follow your expert opinion, Madhat.....
Thanks Cane - not too many true "experts" but good to see a few positive quotes. We will probably get a better idea in a few days what the feel is for Pikiell.
Going by what is quoted by coaches in and outside the area is the most collossal waste of time. When was the last time you heard a negative comment like: "This is a crap hire. He can't do the job. He'll be gone in two years."
Also, I have a question (and please don't jump all over me, my ego can't handle it): What was this guy doing at Stony Brook for ELEVEN YEARS. Is he a new discovery? No mid-majors ever gave him a whirl? Is he a diamond in the rough that been buried for THAT LONG?
Also, I have a question (and please don't jump all over me, my ego can't handle it): What was this guy doing at Stony Brook for ELEVEN YEARS. Is he a new discovery? No mid-majors ever gave him a whirl? Is he a diamond in the rough that been buried for THAT LONG?
Took awhile to build the Stony Brook program into a winner and before he was hired the Seahawks were on probation because of their APR.
But his 5 straight seasons with 20 or more wins ( 6 of his last 7) made him noticeable enough that Hobbs looked at him and decided he was the right fit.
Jim Calhoun ( for an example) lingered at Northeastren for 14 years before he was hired by UConn and I bet ( those more knowledgeable then me) some others could point out other examples like I did.
Then you have the long time assistants that proved to be good head coaches after spending a long time in an assistant's position and not being nabbed by a mid major program to be their HC.
Just because someone spent a long time as HC at a program like Stony or as an assistant somewhere, doesn't mean that person will be a failure, could be programs in need underestimated them and failed to get a good HC because of that.
You can look at name coaches that are available and when you do, ask why they are unemployed.
Might be the program that let them go felt they reached their ceiling and wanted more than they were giving .
Maybe it's best to go with a name unknown by most, but a higher ceiling and one that has proven to be a program builder , even if that program was at a school lower on the totem poll.
Similar threads
