|
Post by Tony on Mar 2, 2013 11:43:14 GMT -5
And you have to like how security went right aftre the guy in SEction 119 to take his orange "Bye Mitch" sign. and who knows if Saintsfan will ever come back now
|
|
bagger
Freshman
Posts: 250
Dislikes:
|
Post by bagger on Mar 2, 2013 11:47:13 GMT -5
now this thread is really getting interesting..
|
|
bigsaintg
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 7,008
Dislikes:
|
Post by bigsaintg on Mar 2, 2013 11:49:39 GMT -5
There is a huge party next Friday night at Stout hosted by MTS to start the which coach that I mentioned will get the job pool. Winner hets their picture taken with new coach at press conference and wins free Dunkin Donuts for a year. MTS is picking up the entire tab! Kick line will be there from 6:30-7:30 welcoming guests. There will be a dunking contest in the parking lot on an 8 foot hoop as well. All the guys with the court side seats will be there too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2013 13:42:22 GMT -5
Didn't the search committee get input from former players and area notables such as John Murray and John Cahill? With the strong endorsement of Fran and RyRo the players, Mitch's past HC history was ignored. No, it didn't work out but the venom on the board towards Fr. Kevin and D'Arg is misguided. They didn't take the "cheap" way out. As I recall, there was not a lot of competition for the opening for the reasons discussed on this board such as the expectations and the cupboard really being bard. Looking at the field at the time the Mitch decision was made, nothing about Coen, Warren or Neubarer jump out to me. a few things... nobody said Siena went 'cheap" ( at least I didn't say that ) applicants were sparse because everyone knew Mitch was getting job. Deck was always stacked in Mitch's favor... and like I've said a million times I didn't agree with decision but I think most understood reason why Mitch was hired in interest of continuity. But if you are going to gamble on a man with Mitch's prior record he sure as hell better be on a short leash... Mitch had several meltdowns on sidelines his 1st year - he took a team picked 2nd and finished in PiG -Mitch didn't do any of the things he said he would do when hired-- attendance started dropping Mitch 1st year =- it was apparent after 1st year he wasn't the man to lead Siena... rather than admit their mistake and terminate Mitch Siena let it linger..as anyone in business will tell you it never gets better when you let a bad hire linger,, and I dont want to hear you couldn't fire him after one year-- he wasn't a new coach.. he was a man who had just posted his 6th straight losing season.Siena could have easily justified firing Mitch after year 1. By not terminating Mitch after first year-- Siena hemorrhaged money in the form or lost sales... and as Saints22 says at a school with limited resources-- who is responsible for that? First off, NO ONE other than you would have viewed Mitch three years ago as a coach coming off his 5th straight losing seasons or coming off his 6th straight losing season after year 1 - you have coined a new meaning to the word straight. In hindsight, getting rid of Mitch at the end of Year 1 might have made sense to the fan base but I'm not certain that it wouldn't have come back and inhibited Siena's future when looking for a coach. Most first year at a school (have to be sooo specific when dealing with you) coaches have a "honeymoon" period. That's my feeling - you can and undoubtedly will disagree. Year 2 had many good reasons (my word - your spell checker is programmed to replace "reasons" with "excuses" - so be it) to stay for a 3rd year. He did much better with only 6 or 7 players than anyone would have thought possible. Don't go back and throw out pre-year 2 optimism - I'm talking about how coaches and smart fans evaluated his performance as our numbers dwindled. Bottom line - he got a "pass" - lots of optimism about the incoming class and the eligibility of Imoh and Lionel. Now, after a 3rd year with NO REASONS and as you would say it, NO EXCUSES, he threw us a clunker - no player development, likely player regression, a beyond lousy record and we had a schedule populated with cupcakes, player abuse (I'm a believer that having several players cramping frequently is an indicator of either abuse or someone not doing their job - I know Mitch's teams go through longer stretches in practice before he "allows" them to "wash out" - perhaps that's a player, I frankly don't know but Evan multiple times, OD and Chris - strange), and team discipline going down the toilet. He has done this himself - no help or encouragement from ANYONE! It's all on him and I'm hoping it gets what it deserves. Nix on the continued bashing of Fr. Kevin and John. As S22 said it, they have done all they could to make and keep this Program where we want it with the exception of making a mid-season, very atypical change. No one knows exactly who influenced who in the final decision to hire Mitch - speculation is rampant. I also don't know who actively sought the job but I do know who was spoken to. I don't believe it was a foredrawn conclusion anymore than that one trustee was the decider. As I recall, there were no objections to hiring him and the reasons to hire him made sense to all at the time. What's done is done - we have to endure a few more games and then see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by MTS on Mar 2, 2013 13:58:46 GMT -5
Yeah, I wonder what will happen? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Mar 2, 2013 14:37:30 GMT -5
First off, NO ONE other than you would have viewed Mitch three years ago as a coach coming off his 5th straight losing seasons or coming off his 6th straight losing season after year 1 - you have coined a new meaning to the word straight. In hindsight, getting rid of Mitch at the end of Year 1 might have made sense to the fan base but I'm not certain that it wouldn't have come back and inhibited Siena's future when looking for a coach. Most first year at a school (have to be sooo specific when dealing with you) coaches have a "honeymoon" period. That's my feeling - you can and undoubtedly will disagree. Year 2 had many good reasons (my word - your spell checker is programmed to replace "reasons" with "excuses" - so be it) to stay for a 3rd year. He did much better with only 6 or 7 players than anyone would have thought possible. Don't go back and throw out pre-year 2 optimism - I'm talking about how coaches and smart fans evaluated his performance as our numbers dwindled. Bottom line - he got a "pass" - lots of optimism about the incoming class and the eligibility of Imoh and Lionel. Now, after a 3rd year with NO REASONS and as you would say it, NO EXCUSES, he threw us a clunker - no player development, likely player regression, a beyond lousy record and we had a schedule populated with cupcakes, player abuse (I'm a believer that having several players cramping frequently is an indicator of either abuse or someone not doing their job - I know Mitch's teams go through longer stretches in practice before he "allows" them to "wash out" - perhaps that's a player, I frankly don't know but Evan multiple times, OD and Chris - strange), and team discipline going down the toilet. He has done this himself - no help or encouragement from ANYONE! It's all on him and I'm hoping it gets what it deserves. Nix on the continued bashing of Fr. Kevin and John. As S22 said it, they have done all they could to make and keep this Program where we want it with the exception of making a mid-season, very atypical change. No one knows exactly who influenced who in the final decision to hire Mitch - speculation is rampant. I also don't know who actively sought the job but I do know who was spoken to. I don't believe it was a foredrawn conclusion anymore than that one trustee was the decider. As I recall, there were no objections to hiring him and the reasons to hire him made sense to all at the time. What's done is done - we have to endure a few more games and then see what happens. Whoa a lot of people were very apprehensive about hiring Mitch given his prior record .In fact Mitch repeatedly had to address this in his “interview “ process .. Remember those answers.. Yes he had made some mistakes at FF, he had learned something coaching with Fran for last 8 years- he knew there was a certain style that fans like to watch and players like to play --- that line was 100% total bullshit. And please inhibited Siena from hiring a coach… give me a break there are 340 D1 head coaching jobs, hell Western Kentucky fired a coach in December a year after he went to NCAA, do you really think it would have inhibited Siena hiring the next millionaire like Siena made millionaire out of Deane Hewitt Orr and Fran As for year two—you are are sooooooooo full of the company line. Since when is a LOSING season a successful season? … its spin… open your eyes. And while Mitch had some bad luck, most of the problem was his own doing by bungling the roster—you know like tying up 3 roster spots last year ( Gomis Silas and Hopper and got nothing last year --- or the fact he ran Beard out with his inconsistent playing time..you were there – you know how upset Devonte was at the Umass and Albany games.. so why are you spinning this? Bottom line it WAS A LOSING season Year 3 wasn’t much different than 1st two- Mitch just ran out players- his lousy recruiting caught up with him--- all of this was pointed out to you and others after Mitch’s first year—you all REFUSED to open your eyes Only reason I go over this is so Siena doesn’t repeat the same mistakes it has several times in the past—you guys have to stop making excuses for Siena. Fr Kevin and d’arg have done plenty of good things over the years at Siena—but when it comes to hiring Mitch and his continued employment past his first year—they screwed the pooch royally I agree whats done is done..we will all be watching what Siena does over next few weeks- like I said actions speak louder than words
|
|
gorvy
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 10,022
Dislikes:
|
Post by gorvy on Mar 2, 2013 14:45:36 GMT -5
a few things... nobody said Siena went 'cheap" ( at least I didn't say that ) applicants were sparse because everyone knew Mitch was getting job. Deck was always stacked in Mitch's favor... and like I've said a million times I didn't agree with decision but I think most understood reason why Mitch was hired in interest of continuity. But if you are going to gamble on a man with Mitch's prior record he sure as hell better be on a short leash... Mitch had several meltdowns on sidelines his 1st year - he took a team picked 2nd and finished in PiG -Mitch didn't do any of the things he said he would do when hired-- attendance started dropping Mitch 1st year =- it was apparent after 1st year he wasn't the man to lead Siena... rather than admit their mistake and terminate Mitch Siena let it linger..as anyone in business will tell you it never gets better when you let a bad hire linger,, and I dont want to hear you couldn't fire him after one year-- he wasn't a new coach.. he was a man who had just posted his 6th straight losing season.Siena could have easily justified firing Mitch after year 1. By not terminating Mitch after first year-- Siena hemorrhaged money in the form or lost sales... and as Saints22 says at a school with limited resources-- who is responsible for that? First off, NO ONE other than you would have viewed Mitch three years ago as a coach coming off his 5th straight losing seasons or coming off his 6th straight losing season after year 1 - you have coined a new meaning to the word straight. In hindsight, getting rid of Mitch at the end of Year 1 might have made sense to the fan base but I'm not certain that it wouldn't have come back and inhibited Siena's future when looking for a coach. Most first year at a school (have to be sooo specific when dealing with you) coaches have a "honeymoon" period. That's my feeling - you can and undoubtedly will disagree. Year 2 had many good reasons (my word - your spell checker is programmed to replace "reasons" with "excuses" - so be it) to stay for a 3rd year. He did much better with only 6 or 7 players than anyone would have thought possible. Don't go back and throw out pre-year 2 optimism - I'm talking about how coaches and smart fans evaluated his performance as our numbers dwindled. Bottom line - he got a "pass" - lots of optimism about the incoming class and the eligibility of Imoh and Lionel. Now, after a 3rd year with NO REASONS and as you would say it, NO EXCUSES, he threw us a clunker - no player development, likely player regression, a beyond lousy record and we had a schedule populated with cupcakes, player abuse (I'm a believer that having several players cramping frequently is an indicator of either abuse or someone not doing their job - I know Mitch's teams go through longer stretches in practice before he "allows" them to "wash out" - perhaps that's a player, I frankly don't know but Evan multiple times, OD and Chris - strange), and team discipline going down the toilet. He has done this himself - no help or encouragement from ANYONE! It's all on him and I'm hoping it gets what it deserves. Nix on the continued bashing of Fr. Kevin and John. As S22 said it, they have done all they could to make and keep this Program where we want it with the exception of making a mid-season, very atypical change. No one knows exactly who influenced who in the final decision to hire Mitch - speculation is rampant. I also don't know who actively sought the job but I do know who was spoken to. I don't believe it was a foredrawn conclusion anymore than that one trustee was the decider. As I recall, there were no objections to hiring him and the reasons to hire him made sense to all at the time. What's done is done - we have to endure a few more games and then see what happens. What is done is done, but I hope some lessons were learned. When you hire a head coach who has suspect skills (and yes, you do have to consider records of 20 years ago when evaluating) and the coach has three all maac players that played on NCAA tourney teams and can't produce a winning record, the change needs to be made right away. It was either a case of hope and pray, or the contract was structured in such a way to make it impossible to make a change after year 1. Either way is not good and indicative of a school that is not really interested in winning at a high level, even though it structures its seating policies like it is. If this is viewed as a "mistake" I am fine with it, but I am not fine if the admin doesn't learn anything from this. Another thing that should be learned is two consecutive losing seasons is also grounds for dismissal. No Siena coach has ever produced a winning season after posting two consecutive losing seasons. That's a stat that can't be ignored and should be structured into future deals no matter what the "reasons" are.
|
|
|
Post by MTS on Mar 2, 2013 15:00:01 GMT -5
I'm sure Siena will making sweeping changes but we won't know for sometime if they are the RIGHT changes. Meaning no matter who they hire as head coach some won't like it (not everyone loved the Fran hire back in 2005).
All we know is Mitch is without question gone (MP and Bill Murray you'll have to trust me on this)... the next questions once Mitch is officially dismissed are who does Siena go after AND where do they sit with conference realignment?
I do believe Siena is interested in winning at a high level - they just don't have the strong leadership (AD?) and direction they need.
|
|
siena03
Team Manager
Posts: 84
Dislikes:
|
Post by siena03 on Mar 2, 2013 15:35:18 GMT -5
If Siena wanted to make a real statement to the MAAC and the NCAA ( especially if they want to get the A10) go get Seth Greenberg ! That guy will make Siena the next Butler.
|
|
|
Post by SienaRocks on Mar 3, 2013 0:47:52 GMT -5
I think saints22 is a mole for Dargenio and the administration.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Mar 3, 2013 4:48:04 GMT -5
Nahha both Saints 22 and MP are good fans.. They sometimes take the company line a bit too much, and I don’t always agree with them, but both are passionate fans and I’m glad they are Siena fans
|
|