XAVIER vs BUTLER

[Xcited]

[QUOTE=Xville; Maybe some of you accept mediocrity but I don't think xavier should. Not making the tourney 2 out of 3 years and the other year squeaking in and getting our behind handed to us should not be acceptable. [/QUOTE]

I'd like to hear your definition of mediocrity.

1. Third place on the Xavier all time win list.
2. Lifetime winning percentage equal to or higher than Jay Wright, John Thompson, Kevin Willard, Greg McDermott, Steve Lavin.
2. Made the tourney 4 out of 5 years.
3. Two Sweet 16's.
4. Currrently ranked 26th in KENPOM
5. Currently ranked 24th in ESPN BPI.
6. Currently ranked 40th in RPI.

All of the above based on actual performance, not based on future "what ifs".

Do you hold yourself to such high standards. Must be tough to hold a job!

[Muskie]

I'd like to hear your definition of mediocrity.

1. Third place on the Xavier all time win list.
2. Lifetime winning percentage equal to or higher than Jay Wright, John Thompson, Kevin Willard, Greg McDermott, Steve Lavin.
2. Made the tourney 4 out of 5 years.
3. Two Sweet 16's.
4. Currrently ranked 26th in KENPOM
5. Currently ranked 24th in ESPN BPI.
6. Currently ranked 40th in RPI.

All of the above based on actual performance, not based on future "what ifs".

Do you hold yourself to such high standards. Must be tough to hold a job!

I posted something similar (using Thad Matta's record in 2004) in another game thread. A season is a lifetime.

[Masterofreality]

And the season is not over.

As I have recalled many times, I saw a Beaknose (The God of some on here) coached team absolutely quit on the court at a mediocre George Washington and get boat raced to go 10-9. Toucan didn't adjust anything, but Lionel Chalmers decided that enough was enough and brought that team together. The Beak didn't call some magical play to beat the Borecats that year. Lionel just put the team on his back and willed a win. Even after that, though, Dookcane came into Cintas and beat Beaky's coached team. Then, after the run, Toucan couldn't get out of here fast enough.

Before all the obits are written let us play this thing out, shall we?

[JEHARDI]

Highly doubtful those complaining the loudest are a 10th as successful in their own professional occupations.

[GoMuskies]

Highly doubtful those complaining the loudest are a 10th as successful in their own professional occupations.

Which is, of course, completely irrelevant.

[XUOWNSUC]

Stop with the "#3 all-time wins" crap. That makes him a great coach? Please. How many games did it take Mack to get that many wins compared to other coaches?

All I know is that Xavier gave up 54 freaking points in the 2nd half yesterday. They let a guy (Jones) who can't shoot for crap on the outside, drive in the lane all day. The defense sucks. You are not going anywhere (NCAA tournament or otherwise) if you can't play defense. As someone else said, Xavier is something like 5-18 in the last 23 road games. Soon to be 5-19. It's all becoming a trend. Welcome to Skip Prosser version 2.0.

Xavier is not going to make a Final Four with Mack as its coach. I'm starting to view the Musketeers in the same light as the Bengals. The Bengals are never going to win a Super Bowl with Marvin Lewis/Mike Brown and Xavier is never going to a Final Four with Mack as coach. The loss yesterday didn't even sting that much yesterday - I expect it now - just like I expect the Bengals to lose in the opening round of the playoffs. It's sad.

The Big East (and the increased level of competition) shouldn't be an excuse. You join a better league because you want (and expect) bigger and better things.

I miss Tu & Miller.

[vee4xu]

I remember when they were #1 in the country. I also remember the beating we gave them up in Dayton. That team that destroyed the #1 team in the nation played tough after getting embarrassed by Duquesne. I don't see much toughness in the current team.

My point is where's SJU today and where's Xavier. I imagine that 2004 seems like a lifetime ago of SJU and they are worse than mediocre in the A-10 today, while some here want to gripe that X is losing to really good teams in a really good conference and retains a 24 KenPom rating. Perspective.

[GoMuskies]

SJU was also in the NCAA Tournament last year, and it basically took a miracle for UConn to beat them in the round of 64.

[vee4xu]

I think we all need to come to the realization that the days of a 25-5 conference record are over. This conference will be very difficult to win on the road. That said. Something seems amiss with this lineup.

Yep.

[GoMuskies]

some here want to gripe that X is losing to really good teams

Also, I don't think anyone Xavier has lost to so far this year would qualify for the "really good team" category.

[vee4xu]

Also, I don't think anyone Xavier has lost to so far this year would qualify for the "really good team" category.

Relatively speaking generally in the BE versus the A-10. DePaul is better than Fordham and Butler is better than Richmond, wouldn't you agree?

[GoMuskies]

Relatively speaking generally in the BE versus the A-10. DePaul is better than Fordham and Butler is better than Richmond, wouldn't you agree?

I guess. Not sure why we'd measure things that way, though. We were pretty pissed everytime we lost at Lossalle, and that's basically what DePaul was if we're analogizing to precedent. We weren't happy losing to Butler, either, since no analogy is necessary going all the way back to the MCC.

[drudy23]

If it's too early to make any conclusions about this team (the season is a marathon crowd), then please tell us when it's OK to worry if we continue along this same path? One more road game meltdown, 2 more...5 more? The off-season?

[SlimKibbles]

Fire Mack? Hahahahaha

That would be stupid. Xcited's post is perfect. Sure I wish X could reach dominance a little more quickly in the Big East like what we were used to in the A10 but that's just not the case at the moment for reasons mentioned in another thread. This league belonged to Villanova and Georgetown when X joined last year. The Big East is a difficult basketball league. Reaching the level of competing for a league title isn't going to happen overnight. I think they're very, very close though. The talent they brought in this season will help immensely. That said, the season isn't over. I still go back to that '04 team and where they were at one point. You never know when the switch will go on and they just dominate everybody they face for over a month, or whatever, unless their opponent is named Duquesne I guess. Anyway losing on the road (again) sucks but the themes are common in every loss. There's time to get things right. I will say, if they're still losing road games at the end of February for the exact same reasons they are now, I'm going to be a little ticked off.

[drudy23]

Teams don't automatically "turn it on" like the '04 team. That was a special ride. It doesn't work that way 99.9% of the time.

[vee4xu]

Bottom line for me is that X is playing in one the the, if not the top, RPI rated conferences. The A-10 is always a middle RPI ranked team. X almost always had the best talent in the A-10, but the talent is the Big East is deeper and spread across all of the teams. Now, though X has better talent than in past years, it is pretty much being rivaled by their opponents game-in-and-game-out. No longer can you go to DC and expect to beat George Washington in DuPont Circle, if for no other reason that you have much better talent. Now, you have to go there and play Georgetown in the Verizon Center. This scenario is true in Philly and NYC too. No more Olean School of Welding, no more Dookane, no more Lose-Sall. Every game, every night in every venue is a battle of equal teams in a big time arena stage and on a network dedicated to the Big East. No excuses here, just reality. Folks, give yourselves a reality check. Xavier is now in the big time. Forever we've asked for is and now we have it. The teams that Xavier is playing now in the Big East are just a couple of years removed from annual regular season games against Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, Connecticut, etc. These teams X is playing know how to play big time basketball. X is learning how to to that. So, far they are doing a great job of it at home, but the learning curve on the road is much steeper for reasons i've noted above. It folks who pined for X to leave the A-10 think the team should be dominating the Big East in the same way, you need to temper those expectations or you are in for a very frustrating time. I will sit more comfortably on Selection Sunday when X has 9-10 losses in the Big East than I did when they dominated the A-10, had maybe 4-6 losses, but didn't win the A-10 tourney. Why, because the NCAA will take 2-3 A-10 teams no matter what, but are likely to take 6-8 Big East teams because of the competitive level of that league.

[GoMuskies]

Save that post for losses to Villanova and Georgetown and maybe even Seton Hall. Our two losses so far have been at DePaul and Butler.

[vee4xu]

Save that post for losses to Villanova and Georgetown and maybe even Seton Hall. Our two losses so far have been at DePaul and Butler.

Well, since it's my opinion I will post it when I feel like it. Though, as always, I do appreciate your guidance.

[Xville]

Save that post for losses to Villanova and Georgetown and maybe even Seton Hall. Our two losses so far have been at DePaul and Butler.

Exactly..enough of the bs we are now in the big east talk so expect to lose. I accept and heck even expect to lose at nova, gtown, and Seton hall this year. Just because we are in the big east does not mean it's ok to lose to depaul, lbsu, auburn etc. Those aren't good teams.

[GoMuskies]

Well, since it's my opinion I will post it when I feel like it. Though, as always, I do appreciate your guidance.

Everyone is certainly entitled to their ridiculous opinions.

[xsteve1]

I'd like to hear your definition of mediocrity.

1. Third place on the Xavier all time win list.
2. Lifetime winning percentage equal to or higher than Jay Wright, John Thompson, Kevin Willard, Greg McDermott, Steve Lavin.
2. Made the tourney 4 out of 5 years.
3. Two Sweet 16's.
4. Currrently ranked 26th in KENPOM
5. Currently ranked 24th in ESPN BPI.
6. Currently ranked 40th in RPI.

All of the above based on actual performance, not based on future "what ifs".

Do you hold yourself to such high standards. Must be tough to hold a job!

I agree Mack started out very well but his last 3 teams mostly his players have been rather pedestrian. Has Mack gotten worse as a coach? were his assistants better on those first 3 teams? Outside of his first season have any of his teams really seemed like they were clicking on all cylinders heading into March?
Like some have said it seems like we have trended back to the Prosser years.

[GoMuskies]

I don't think Mack deserves total credit for those first three years or total blame for the last three years. The Sweet Sixteens were built on the back of players recruited by Miller. Sure, Mack had a hand in that, and it's not like you just roll the ball out there and end up in the Sweet Sixteen, so he gets a lot of credit, but not full credit. For the last three years, I think Mack was put in a terrible position with the fight fallout and the Dez Wells fiasco. I think he's done a pretty good job the last two years of minimizing the damage, and I think he's pretty close to digging out of that hole and getting us back to where we expect to be. And he'd better have us out of that hole soon, because the statute of limitations on that excuse is about to expire.

[Masterofreality]

I agree Mack started out very well but his last 3 teams mostly his players have been rather pedestrian. Has Mack gotten worse as a coach? were his assistants better on those first 3 teams? Outside of his first season have any of his teams really seemed like they were clicking on all cylinders heading into March?
Like some have said it seems like we have trended back to the Prosser years.

Trust me. If there is heat applied, there will be no reason for any Booster or Xavier to have to buy out any contract from Chris Mack.

There will be plenty of school suitors who would line up to A) Offer a guy with 2 Sweet 16's and 5 NCAA's on his reume a job. B) At a higher salary than Mack is currently being paid and C) Have the alumni be ecstatic about it.

Reference : Brian Gregory and Oliver Purnell among others.

[DC Muskie]

I want to get back to playing the packline defense and do it well.

The three prominent programs that run the packline right now stand at 44-2.

[X-band '01]

More often than not, it's not the loss in itself that's galling so much as a)who you lose to and b)the manner in which you lose.

In a game where field goals and turnovers are relatively even, Xavier put itself in a deep hole by losing the rebounding battle by double-figures. Give Butler or any good team extra possessions and you'll either give up an inordinate amount of shots or trips to the free throw line. No matter what team you cheer for, teams who get outhustled are going to have irate reactions afterward. And more often than not, the posters who complain the loudest will obviously be hard workers themselves, be it in a boardroom or reception desk or mailroom cubicle.

There will be other opportunities to win away from home, but it is discouraging to see one slip away in that manner. We'll just see what happens at Nova next.

[mohr5150]

I want to get back to playing the packline defense and do it well.

The three prominent programs that run the packline right now stand at 44-2.

What is it that they are doing that we aren't? Is it a lack of foot speed? Improper spacing? Lack of discipline? It would be interesting to hear because I have no idea other than our players look slow. Almost all of them.

[DC Muskie]

What is it that they are doing that we aren't? Is it a lack of foot speed? Improper spacing? Lack of discipline? It would be interesting to hear because I have no idea other than our players look slow. Almost all of them.

Personally I think it's a culture that prides itself on being accountable to where you need to be. We have a lot of guys who talk a good game, but they don't hit their spots, especially on drives to the basket. So I would have to say it's a lack of discipline.

We also had players in the past who developed that part of the game. Stanley, Doellman are two guys off the top of my head that changed their games to one of more defense and rebounding. What I read from Farr yesterday is that he prides himself on rebounding, and does a decent job, but I think we have so many offensive minded players that playing strong tough defense is more of an idea. Farr says he prides himself on rebounding, but we got killed on the boards. Not sure that ever happened before.

I think this team defensively is playing off the reputation of past teams. Like "Yeah at Xavier we are tough." But when we hit the floor that mindset is out the window,

[mohr5150]

Personally I think it's a culture that prides itself on being accountable to where you need to be. We have a lot of guys who talk a good game, but they don't hit their spots, especially on drives to the basket. So I would have to say it's a lack of discipline.

We also had players in the past who developed that part of the game. Stanley, Doellman are two guys off the top of my head that changed their games to one of more defense and rebounding. What I read from Farr yesterday is that he prides himself on rebounding, and does a decent job, but I think we have so many offensive minded players that playing strong tough defense is more of an idea. Farr says he prides himself on rebounding, but we got killed on the boards. Not sure that ever happened before.

I think this team defensively is playing off the reputation of past teams. Like "Yeah at Xavier we are tough." But when we hit the floor that mindset is out the window,

So, what's the answer? Should Mack run the shit out of this team until they listen? With the exception of Abel, the rest of this team to a player sucks at their defensive role. He can't bench guys who suck because they all suck at defense right now. Mack said it in his presser that, for as good at the offensive game that Bluiett has been, he has struggled at the defensive end. And Bluiett isn't the only one. Stainbrook looks about five steps slower than he did last year. Farr looks overmatched, Macura looks lost on the court. Reynolds' head hasn't caught up with his level of talent. I don't know if there really is an answer. I understand Mack's frustration because I don't know if there is an answer. Trying to outscore people might be the only answer, and that's a dangerous type of game to play. As a teacher, I know the feeling when you think you've tried everything and the kids just don't get it. You do run out of ideas.

[DC Muskie]

So, what's the answer? Should Mack run the shit out of this team until they listen? With the exception of Abel, the rest of this team to a player sucks at their defensive role. He can't bench guys who suck because they all suck at defense right now. Mack said it in his presser that, for as good at the offensive game that Bluiett has been, he has struggled at the defensive end. And Bluiett isn't the only one. Stainbrook looks about five steps slower than he did last year. Farr looks overmatched, Macura looks lost on the court. Reynolds' head hasn't caught up with his level of talent. I don't know if there really is an answer. I understand Mack's frustration because I don't know if there is an answer. Trying to outscore people might be the only answer, and that's a dangerous type of game to play. As a teacher, I know the feeling when you think you've tried everything and the kids just don't get it. You do run out of ideas.

Well I guess give up? Screw it, they ain't getting it, so why bother? Is that the only response then?

Maybe this defense is too complicated for these guys. Maybe we need to change it completely. What can you do, since it seems we have run of ideas to get them to play it correctly. Right?

Or going back to basics. Or throwing in some more zone. Maybe press more. Because sitting around and watching us get carved up on the defensive side of the ball is simply not working.

I don't get paid a million dollars to simple say "Well I'm frustrated because they aren't getting it." The job is to figure it out. So figure it out. There really is no other answer than that.

[LA Muskie]

I think the problem is that we only have 2 starters who are even capable of defending their counterparts at this level: Remy and Dee (and frankly Dee seems to have taken a step or two backward this year). And it doesn't get any better off the bench. To the contrary, it gets even worse when Remy and/or Dee take a break. You just can't hide 3 guys on defense, especially when they all need to guard bigs. And there's really no defensive system that can help. Our deficiencies run too deep.

[waggy]

The players have to take ownership.

Mack didn't get torched; they did.

Either that or Justin Martin and Semaj were defensive Gods.

[vee4xu]

So, curious. For all of the Mack-should-be-replaced crowd, let me ask you this. Would you take Phil Martelli? He coached a team to number 1. Sure, X beat them, but they went to the Elite 8 that same year. He has run a clean, successful program. His team's have suffered of late, but he has all the attributes. Would you trade Mack for Phil? How about Larry Brown? Sure, he's older, but he's won an NCAA championship, coached in the NBA and has resurrected an SMU program from the dirt. Larry Brown, anyone? How about Steve Lavin? He coaches in our league. That guy coached he hell out of UCLA, yet his SJU teams haven't fared better than X. SJU has a long, proud basketball tradition. Steve Lavin, anyone?

Point is, good coaches get chances to get to the mountaintop. We can all debate whether, or not Coach Mack has taken this team as high as he could, or if he might. But, there are good coaches all over this country who never quite get there. I just listed three who have and are now toiling to try and do it again. Alert: Winning in DI men's basketball ain't easy. If you think changing coaches is the answer, then how about the three listed above? If not, then who?

[LA Muskie]

The players have to take ownership.

Mack didn't get torched; they did.

Either that or Justin Martin and Semaj were defensive Gods.
I agree. We're never going to be an outstanding defensive team. But we can play the best D this squad can play. And they aren't even doing that right now. More critically, there's absolutely no excuse for us getting outrebounded. By just about anyone. But certainly by a team like Butler. It's inexcusable for Matt, Jalen, James, and Trevon in particular, but rebounding is a team effort and NO ONE really put in the necessary effort yesterday.

This team needs buy-in. It's not there yet. And while you certainly want your coaching staff to work their asses off to get it, in the end it's on the young men on the court.

[JEHARDI]

Teams don't automatically "turn it on" like the '04 team. That was a special ride. It doesn't work that way 99.9% of the time.

Happens all the time both in the pros and college. Teams get hot and go on significant runs all the time in every sport. As a NYG fan, I have enjoyed two Super Bowls in the last decade that no one gave them a shot to get to let alone win. Same could be said about Butler's 2 FF runs. Not to say it happens here but it does happen all the time in sports.

[LA Muskie]

So, curious. For all of the Mack-should-be-replaced crowd, let me ask you this. Would you take Phil Martelli? He coached a team to number 1. Sure, X beat them, but they went to the Elite 8 that same year. He has run a clean, successful program. His team's have suffered of late, but he has all the attributes. Would you trade Mack for Phil? How about Larry Brown? Sure, he's older, but he's won an NCAA championship, coached in the NBA and has resurrected an SMU program from the dirt. Larry Brown, anyone? How about Steve Lavin? He coaches in our league. That guy coached he hell out of UCLA, yet his SJU teams haven't fared better than X. SJU has a long, proud basketball tradition. Steve Lavin, anyone?

Point is, good coaches get chances to get to the mountaintop. We can all debate whether, or not Coach Mack has taken this team as high as he could, or if he might. But, there are good coaches all over this country who never quite get there. I just listed three who have and are now toiling to try and do it again. Alert: Winning in DI men's basketball ain't easy. If you think changing coaches is the answer, then how about the three listed above? If not, then who?
I was not a huge fan when they chose Mack 6 years ago. I didn't think it was a horrible decision, but I wasn't convinced he was the right choice. I'm still not. Nevertheless, I think he's a good/very good coach. He's better than I thought he would be. While if he's coached us into a few bad losses, he's coached us into at least as many great wins -- if not more. Some teams have "it". Some don't. And sometimes there's nothing a coach can do about it. Because at the end of the day, the buck stops with the young men on the court.

As for your question, I think you are looking at it exactly as an AD should. What is Mack's WAR? Unless we are extremely confident his replacement would improve matters, you don't make a change.

Not that I think a change is in store. We're not firing Mack. Nor should we. That said, I think the only thing that has kept him here, at this point, is geography. From the administration to the fanbase, I think he has suffered a lack of support previously unheard of at Xavier (at least unheard of in many decades).

[Xville]

I think we at least need to try a zone and see what happens. We got beat off the dribble so many times yesterday and that even included Abell a couple of times. It's really frustrating sometimes when mack is so stubborn to stick to the game plan no matter what happens..even when guys are driving to the hoop and getting uncontested layups time and time again.

[LA Muskie]

I think we at least need to try a zone and see what happens. We got beat off the dribble so many times yesterday and that even included Abell a couple of times. It's really frustrating sometimes when mack is so stubborn to stick to the game plan no matter what happens..even when guys are driving to the hoop and getting uncontested layups time and time again.
I disagree. I believe a zone would only magnify our issues, and make rebounding deficits like yesterday even more common.

[JEHARDI]

I think we at least need to try a zone and see what happens. We got beat off the dribble so many times yesterday and that even included Abell a couple of times. It's really frustrating sometimes when mack is so stubborn to stick to the game plan no matter what happens..even when guys are driving to the hoop and getting uncontested layups time and time again.

We got killed on the offensive glass yesterday, cannot go zone when you are having trouble on the boards.

[Xville]

I disagree. I believe a zone would only magnify our issues, and make rebounding deficits like yesterday even more common.

I think against butler it would have been good to try. Butler is not an offensively talented team by any stretch of the imagination...no one on that team outside of dunham can shoot outside five feet on a consistent basis..switching to zone would and should have shut off driving lanes which is where they were absolutely killing us.

[Xville]

We got killed on the offensive glass yesterday, cannot go zone when you are having trouble on the boards.

You are right except the reason why they were getting offensive boards so much is because guys had to come help off their man because their teammates were consistently getting beat off the dribble.

[Masterofreality]

I went back and "checked the tape" on yesterday. There were breakdowns across the spectrum- less so on Abell and Dee Davis, but they had their moments too. The ones who got broken down more than others and stood out for their foibles were Macura, Bluiett, and Jalen Reynolds. Reynolds was out of position numerous times and that caused offensive rebounds and a couple of times just got outfought for the ball. Even Their freshman Wideman got the best of him a time or two. Trevon and JP were pretty much taken to the cleaners.

Matt Stainbrook even had a couple of times where Charbascz out hustled him. Farr got out worked by Woods. The times we tried to press it was totally ineffective and Macura got beat down the floor. The way that Barlow made 3's yesterday and the way Dunham can shoot, I don't know if a zone would have worked yesterday.

On offense, Trevon, Myles and JP couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. With 10 minutes to go and Xavier down only 1, Trevon missed a wide ass open 3, Stain missed the first of a 1-1, then Dee misses another wide ass open 3 and Trevon misses another 3, but at least he got the rebound for a 2. By that time, though, both Barlow and Martin made 3's and Dunham made a back cut 2 and X is down by 7. Before the carnage was over, Macura missed two open 3's and Bluiett took a bad shot on a drive. When we could not make anything outside, they started doubling down on Stain and got a strip steal. Ball game.

Look, I'll criticize the coach where appropriate, but after watching again, I sort of agree with CMack. There are guys that have to grow up on D like Macura and Trevon and Stain, Reynolds and Farr just have to get meaner and not allow second shots to happen. On offense, our freshman scorers from outside need to make some of their shots. The only guy to me that is consistent on both sides of the floor for this team is Remy Abell and Dee is playing better than many here are giving him credit for.

[LA Muskie]

I think against butler it would have been good to try. Butler is not an offensively talented team by any stretch of the imagination...no one on that team outside of dunham can shoot outside five feet on a consistent basis..switching to zone would and should have shut off driving lanes which is where they were absolutely killing us.
Playing zone would have played into Dunham's hands. The bigs still have to move in a zone. And it's much harder to box everyone out in a zone. I just don't think it would have helped. But I guess, at least in retrospect, it couldn't have hurt all that much...

[Xville]

I don't pretend to have all the answers. I certainly dont...but something needs to change because our defense is consistently awful on the road. It's either scheme, will, or both. If it's will then our players need to sack up and get tougher..if it's scheme, mack needs to switch it up..whatever it is, it needs to change. If I were mack though, I wouldn't keep doing the same thing and expect different results on the road.

Also just out of curiosity...where was randolph yesterday and why did Austin get in the game...not dogging austin...was just weird to see him in there since I don't think we have seen him in a game for a very long time.

[LA Muskie]

I don't pretend to have all the answers. I certainly dont...but something needs to change because our defense is consistently awful on the road. It's either scheme, will, or both. If it's will then our players need to sack up and get tougher..if it's scheme, mack needs to switch it up..whatever it is, it needs to change. If I were mack though, I wouldn't keep doing the same thing and expect different results on the road.
You left out ability. In order, I think it's almost entirely ability and will.

[vee4xu]

I went back and "checked the tape" on yesterday. There were breakdowns across the spectrum- less so on Abell and Dee Davis, but they had their moments too. The ones who got broken down more than others and stood out for their foibles were Macura, Bluiett, and Jalen Reynolds. Reynolds was out of position numerous times and that caused offensive rebounds and a couple of times just got outfought for the ball. Even Their freshman Wideman got the best of him a time or two. Trevon and JP were pretty much taken to the cleaners.

Matt Stainbrook even had a couple of times where Charbascz out hustled him. Farr got out worked by Woods. The times we tried to press it was totally ineffective and Macura got beat down the floor. The way that Barlow made 3's yesterday and the way Dunham can shoot, I don't know if a zone would have worked yesterday.

On offense, Trevon, Myles and JP couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. With 10 minutes to go and Xavier down only 1, Trevon missed a wide ass open 3, Stain missed the first of a 1-1, then Dee misses another wide ass open 3 and Trevon misses another 3, but at least he got the rebound for a 2. By that time, though, both Barlow and Martin made 3's and Dunham made a back cut 2 and X is down by 7. Before the carnage was over, Macura missed two open 3's and Bluiett took a bad shot on a drive. When we could not make anything outside, they started doubling down on Stain and got a strip steal. Ball game.

Look, I'll criticize the coach where appropriate, but after watching again, I sort of agree with CMack. There are guys that have to grow up on D like Macura and Trevon and Stain, Reynolds and Farr just have to get meaner and not allow second shots to happen. On offense, our freshman scorers from outside need to make some of their shots. The only guy to me that is consistent on both sides of the floor for this team is Remy Abell and Dee is playing better than many here are giving him credit for.

Thanks, MOR for this summary. And, with seemingly so many out of position and getting beat, it isn't like Mack can yank one guy and put another one in the game. Also, Remy is a transfer who is saving our butts, a la, Crawford, Holloway, Lavender, etc. Until enough players buck up and play better D, Mack has no option to not yanking them and needs to try and put the "best" defensive unit on the court. Whatever that means currently.

[Xville]

You left out ability. In order, I think it's almost entirely ability and will.

True. Rebounding though is probably more will than ability though. I mean it's not rocket science...when the ball goes up, find a man and get your behind into him. This I concede is definitely not macks fault...the guys have to want to do this.

Is O'Mara really that much worse than what we currently have in the front court from a defensive perspective. When he was in there earlier in the year, the guy certainly seemed to have the will to defend. Just seems strange.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Rough game to be at. Whats with the, seemingly, randomness of players not playing at all in certain games? Why did Randolph not play at all? Not saying that mattered in the game, just an observation.

Nothing really to add from the game but I'll comment on Hinkle. We were about 2-3 rows up from where the cushions on the benches ended....miserable. My ass was not comfortable to say the least. It was very hot, they must have been blasting the heat not to mention you are crammed into the people next to you. Also bizarre was that they had seat numbers on the bench and and the floor and they did not match. We initially sat in the numbers on the bench but that was wrong. Numerous people were in the wrong seats because of this, very odd.

I'll take comfort and amenities (if you can call real seats and seat backs amenities) over "history" any day.

[XUBob]

MOR,

I was there yesterday and you have hit the nail on the head. While trading baskets is never a good idea X was surviving until that stretch you mentioned. Sometimes defense is " want to" you have to take it personally as a defender until X reaches that level road wins will be hard to come by. Collectively the team has to buy in on the defensive end. Our offense will take care of itself, we scored enough to win yesterday, success will come if and when we tighten up the D.

[vee4xu]

MOR,

I was there yesterday and you have hit the nail on the head. While trading baskets is never a good idea X was surviving until that stretch you mentioned. Sometimes defense is " want to" you have to take it personally as a defender until X reaches that level road wins will be hard to come by. Collectively the team has to buy in on the defensive end. Our offense will take care of itself, we scored enough to win yesterday, success will come if and when we tighten up the D.

Agree. And good defense creates offense in transition, which is a staple of Xavier's. When the defense isn't creating and the rebounding is allowing more than one chance, it is a huge inhibitor to a big part of how X scores.

[paulxu]

Also bizarre was that they had seat numbers on the bench and and the floor and they did not match. We initially sat in the numbers on the bench but that was wrong. Numerous people were in the wrong seats because of this, very odd.

Hah! This sounds like the old football stadium capacity improvement program. Same number of benches, just move the numbers closer together, adding a bunch of seats per row, and...voila! It's Michigan!(or Tennessee) Maybe they decided to paint numbers on the floor instead of re-doing the seats.

[Masterofreality]

I don't pretend to have all the answers. I certainly dont...but something needs to change because our defense is consistently awful on the road. It's either scheme, will, or both. If it's will then our players need to sack up and get tougher..if it's scheme, mack needs to switch it up..whatever it is, it needs to change. If I were mack though, I wouldn't keep doing the same thing and expect different results on the road.
.

I guess I come down on the side that we got after it on D against Seton Hall and GTown at home. We go on the road and there are problems. If it is scheme, then we'd have problems everywhere, but it only seems to be on the road- that would indicate a problem with energy and effort. That still doesn't absolve the staff of making adjustments depending on game flow, but basically it should be something that works if the right people are placed on the right people.

Rebounding is almost 100% effort...and we got killed yesterday. A La Lionel Chalmers, some upper classman has to step up, take ownership of this team on the court and challenge people.

[LA Muskie]

True. Rebounding though is probably more will than ability though. I mean it's not rocket science...when the ball goes up, find a man and get your behind into him. This I concede is definitely not macks fault...the guys have to want to do this.

I agree. There is a skill to rebounding but effort is probably the most important factor.

[XU 87]

It appears to me that lack of effort is why we keep seeing road losses. The rebounding margin yesterday was ridiculous, and telling.

that said, if the season ended today, we're in the tourney. The RPI is 35 right now.

[mohr5150]

I would have to guess the reason Randolph didn't play was due to headinass disease. He played for 4 minutes on Wednesday and Seton Hall went from being down 4 to up 6, with his guy scoring seven points. SH har 10 points when he came in and 22 when he came out. He has looked totally clueless lately. I'm not sure our defense was that much better vs. Seton Hall. They just missed a shit ton of wide open shots. The intensity in the Georgetown game was much better, though, than at any point during this season. I believe they will continue to struggle against any team with bigs who can shoot. If they can pull Stain, Reynolds, or Farr away from the basket, we are screwed.

[bleedXblue]

I agree. There is a skill to rebounding but effort is probably the most important factor.

Why do we continue to talk about effort? To me it is very, very simple. You don't play hard or you get toasted on d, you don't play. I don't care if we play walk ons honestly. The message should have been sent games ago. Mack has to get control of this group....now!

[LA Muskie]

The Norman Dale "my team's on the floor" drill huh? I admit I would love to see that myself, too. But if we can't play defense with 5, I can't imagine we'd be better with only 4...

[LadyMuskie]

Rebounding is almost 100% effort...and we got killed yesterday. A La Lionel Chalmers, some upper classman has to step up, take ownership of this team on the court and challenge people.

Couldn't agree more.

[LadyMuskie]

So, curious. For all of the Mack-should-be-replaced crowd, let me ask you this. Would you take Phil Martelli? He coached a team to number 1. Sure, X beat them, but they went to the Elite 8 that same year. He has run a clean, successful program. His team's have suffered of late, but he has all the attributes. Would you trade Mack for Phil? How about Larry Brown? Sure, he's older, but he's won an NCAA championship, coached in the NBA and has resurrected an SMU program from the dirt. Larry Brown, anyone? How about Steve Lavin? He coaches in our league. That guy coached he hell out of UCLA, yet his SJU teams haven't fared better than X. SJU has a long, proud basketball tradition. Steve Lavin, anyone?

Point is, good coaches get chances to get to the mountaintop. We can all debate whether, or not Coach Mack has taken this team as high as he could, or if he might. But, there are good coaches all over this country who never quite get there. I just listed three who have and are now toiling to try and do it again. Alert: Winning in DI men's basketball ain't easy. If you think changing coaches is the answer, then how about the three listed above? If not, then who?

I don't think anyone here is arguing that consistent winning is easy. I think Matta, Miller and Gillen all proved that a lot of hard work, blood, sweat and tears goes into pushing a team and a program to the next level. Phil Martelli is a great guy. He is not a great coach. He's a good coach. His team once climbed the mountain, then they quickly fell back to the valley and have remained plateaued there. I'm not sure what is is you want from your argument here? You're comparing Mack to a lot of mediocre coaches. Are they all interchangeable? Maybe. I don't think anyone is advocating firing Mack and making a sideways hire. We didn't make a sideways hire when Prosser left. We didn't make a sideways hire when Matta left.

In my opinion it is not enough that we are just in the Big East. I think we should not accept the plateau of having moved into a better league. We certainly didn't accept that plateau when we moved from the MCC to the A10, did we? No. We didn't. We continued to improve and grow and get better in many ways each season. I want Xavier to be lumped with Georgetown and Villanova when people speak of the Big East, not the likes of DePaul.

Do you think we have improved substantially each year under Mack's leadership? Have we gotten noticeably better in some way each season - even if the season itself wasn't an overwhelming success? I don't think we have. This season reeks of the same mediocrity of last year.

If you're fine with just making the tournament each year, but not advancing, fine. That's your right. But, we don't all share your viewpoint. We don't all think that just because Mack isn't the king of suckage he's the right fit for Xavier. I don't want Xavier to be "just" anything. I don't need to bring home Final Four Banners and National Championships each year or even every three years. But, I do think Xavier can be in the conversation damn near every season - and right now, we're not even an afterthought for contention. We're not Dayton. Just making it shouldn't be enough.

[XU 87]

I would have to guess the reason Randolph didn't play was due to headinass disease. He played for 4 minutes on Wednesday and Seton Hall went from being down 4 to up 6, with his guy scoring seven points. SH har 10 points when he came in and 22 when he came out. He has looked totally clueless lately. I'm not sure our defense was that much better vs. Seton Hall. They just missed a shit ton of wide open shots. The intensity in the Georgetown game was much better, though, than at any point during this season. I believe they will continue to struggle against any team with bigs who can shoot. If they can pull Stain, Reynolds, or Farr away from the basket, we are screwed.

The staff was noticeably pissed off at Randolph in the first half because of his bad defense.

[xudash]

I
I don't think anyone here is arguing that consistent winning is easy. I think Matta, Miller and Gillen all proved that a lot of hard work, blood, sweat and tears goes into pushing a team and a program to the next level. Phil Martelli is a great guy. He is not a great coach. He's a good coach. His team once climbed the mountain, then they quickly fell back to the valley and have remained plateaued there. I'm not sure what is is you want from your argument here? You're comparing Mack to a lot of mediocre coaches. Are they all interchangeable? Maybe. I don't think anyone is advocating firing Mack and making a sideways hire. We didn't make a sideways hire when Prosser left. We didn't make a sideways hire when Matta left.

In my opinion it is not enough that we are just in the Big East. I think we should not accept the plateau of having moved into a better league. We certainly didn't accept that plateau when we moved from the MCC to the A10, did we? No. We didn't. We continued to improve and grow and get better in many ways each season. I want Xavier to be lumped with Georgetown and Villanova when people speak of the Big East, not the likes of DePaul.

Do you think we have improved substantially each year under Mack's leadership? Have we gotten noticeably better in some way each season - even if the season itself wasn't an overwhelming success? I don't think we have. This season reeks of the same mediocrity of last year.

If you're fine with just making the tournament each year, but not advancing, fine. That's your right. But, we don't all share your viewpoint. We don't all think that just because Mack isn't the king of suckage he's the right fit for Xavier. I don't want Xavier to be "just" anything. I don't need to bring home Final Four Banners and National Championships each year or even every three years. But, I do think Xavier can be in the conversation damn near every season - and right now, we're not even an afterthought for contention. We're not Dayton. Just making it shouldn't be enough.

I can't speak for vee, but I doubt it's his disposition to settle for anything for Xavier but at the top of the Big East and soon.

I am worried at this point about improvement. However, as I stated in the prior post, I believe we are still cycling through the effects of the fight and of the Dez Wells and recruiting fiascoes. Additionally, I do believe we are still adjusting to this new conference.

I can't imagine anyone at this point could possibly question our coaches ability to recruit. Yes, he absolutely must demonstrate that he can grow his talent and mold them into a cohesive team. To this point, they seem to only be able to do that while playing on our home floor. But The key point I need to make here is that continuity in coaching is critical to being able to sustain a program at a high-level. I give you Mark Few as the best example of that.

So we are all losing our patients as each road loss piles up, but, given the potential for other outcomes, our fellow Xavier alumnus probably deserves more time and certainly will receive it from his bosses.

[nickgyp]

Watched the game yesterday; Butler controlled the tempo the entire second half. Seems to me that a full court press by X might have helped to mix things up and disrupt the flow of Butler's offense. Each time down the court, Butler set up their half-court offense and did what they wanted to do.

[vee4xu]

OSU lost at IU yesterday and Duke lost big at NC State today. Wonder if their respective fans a gearing up for the NIT?

[LadyMuskie]

I

I can't speak for vee, but I doubt it's his disposition to settle for anything for Xavier but at the top of the Big East and soon.

I am worried at this point about improvement. However, as I stated in the prior post, I believe we are still cycling through the effects of the fight and of the Dez Wells and recruiting fiascoes. Additionally, I do believe we are still adjusting to this new conference.

I can't imagine anyone at this point could possibly question our coaches ability to recruit. Yes, he absolutely must demonstrate that he can grow his talent and mold them into a cohesive team. To this point, they seem to only be able to do that while playing on our home floor. But The key point I need to make here is that continuity in coaching is critical to being able to sustain a program at a high-level. I give you Mark Few as the best example of that.

So we are all losing our patients as each road loss piles up, but, given the potential for other outcomes, our fellow Xavier alumnus probably deserves more time and certainly will receive it from his bosses.

I think he gets next year. At some point, using the Dez Wells and brawl excuses become old hat. Time to move on. It happened. It sucked. We're not the only team in America to lose a talented player for one reason or another. Miller had to let Dedrick Finn go, and while not the caliber of talent as Wells, it is not as though Mack is the first or only coach to ever face some adversity and have to adjust accordingly. Continuity in coaching is only useful when the coaching is working, when the program reaches and maintains a high level of success. Are you saying we're there with Mack? Are you insinuating that we will get there with Mack? What evidence is there to support that?

I'm not saying Mack should be fired today, or even tomorrow. As I've stated many times in this and other threads, I think he deserves to finish the season, and play out next season. But, I also think that we have to start acknowledging that there are issues with Mack's teams. I think that just pretending that everything is a-okay because he's a fellow alumnus, and asking fans to keep waiting until next season is beneficial to absolutely no one. If there was growth and improvement, I'd agree with you. But last season and this season, we sure look like the same team, and that team does not look that good.

[LA Muskie]

Watched the game yesterday; Butler controlled the tempo the entire second half. Seems to me that a full court press by X might have helped to mix things up and disrupt the flow of Butler's offense. Each time down the court, Butler set up their half-court offense and did what they wanted to do.
On the other hand, Stain scored 17 of our points in the 2nd half. And we can't press with him on the floor.

[vee4xu]

So, Lady, whose on your short list of replacements that would be such a dramatic upgrade from Coach Mack. Remember, we are Xavier and not Duke, or Kentucky, or any other school that will pay huge bucks for a coach. So, you're left with some unproven assistant from somewhere who may not recruit well, win at home, understand Xavier's tradition, oh but may win a lot of road games. And, if he is worth his weight in salt and makes a huge splash, then he will be gone to another school where he can make more money. The floor is yours ma'am. I anxiously await your list.

[LA Muskie]

So, Lady, whose on your short list of replacements that would be such a dramatic upgrade from Coach Mack. Remember, we are Xavier and not Duke, or Kentucky, or any other school that will pay huge bucks for a coach. So, you're left with some unproven assistant from somewhere who may not recruit well, win at home, understand Xavier's tradition, oh but may win a lot of road games. And, if he is worth his weight in salt and makes a huge splash, then he will be gone to another school where he can make more money. The floor is yours ma'am. I anxiously await your list.
As you know, I agreed with your premise that we need to be able to hire an improvement. But frankly we've had pretty good luck with that (even though in each instance the vacancy was thrust upon us, and not the result of firing the coach). In my estimation: Miller > Matta > Prosser > Gillen. In each of those instances, the newcomer was either an unproven assistant (Miller and Gillen) or a very green head coach in a lesser league (Matta and Prosser).

[drudy23]

OSU lost at IU yesterday and Duke lost big at NC State today. Wonder if their respective fans a gearing up for the NIT?

Great comparison...um, not really.

[vee4xu]

Great comparison...um, not really.

Sarcasm there friend. Next time I'll use the eye roll symbol to help you out.

[drudy23]

Me too

[vee4xu]

As you know, I agreed with your premise that we need to be able to hire an improvement. But frankly we've had pretty good luck with that (even though in each instance the vacancy was thrust upon us, and not the result of firing the coach). In my estimation: Miller > Matta > Prosser > Gillen. In each of those instances, the newcomer was either an unproven assistant (Miller and Gillen) or a very green head coach in a lesser league (Matta and Prosser).

My late dad used to have a saying that I hold dear. He said, son you can't hit a home run every time you go to the plate. So, with the odds you just outlined it may be time for a whiff. I for one don't want to take that chance when there seems so much more to lose than to gain under the current circumstances.

Also, so there's no confusion, I support Coach Mack and do not support replacing him.

[vee4xu]

Me too


Oops, sorry. Hoist with my own petard.

[LA Muskie]

Also, so there's no confusion, I support Coach Mack and do not support replacing him.
To be clear, so do I.

I was just pointing out that, for the most part, we have done very well hiring replacements. Frankly, Mack was probably the most disappointing hire in 25 years, and look at what he's accomplished in his 5+ years. It's not so much an indictment of him (I think he's a solid, if not outstanding, hire) as it is a testament to each of the earlier hires and how they were able to advance the program.

[RedsX11]

Highly doubtful those complaining the loudest are a 10th as successful in their own professional occupations.

That's extremely relevant to the conversation.

[xudash]

I think he gets next year. 1. At some point, using the Dez Wells and brawl excuses become old hat. Time to move on. It happened. It sucked. We're not the only team in America to lose a talented player for one reason or another. Miller had to let Dedrick Finn go, and while not the caliber of talent as Wells, it is not as though Mack is the first or only coach to ever face some adversity and have to adjust accordingly.

2.Continuity in coaching is only useful when the coaching is working, when the program reaches and maintains a high level of success. Are you saying we're there with Mack? Are you insinuating that we will get there with Mack? What evidence is there to support that?

3. I'm not saying Mack should be fired today, or even tomorrow. As I've stated many times in this and other threads, I think he deserves to finish the season, and play out next season.

4. But, I also think that we have to start acknowledging that there are issues with Mack's teams. I think that just pretending that everything is a-okay because he's a fellow alumnus, and asking fans to keep waiting until next season is beneficial to absolutely no one. If there was growth and improvement, I'd agree with you. But last season and this season, we sure look like the same team, and that team does not look that good.

1. I agree with your Section 1.

2. I made a point about the importance of continuity when you have a strong coach; I didn't say anything about being at an appropriate level with Chris Mack at this point. We should at least have 13 wins and closing in on a Top 25 ranking. While his overall resume should be an argument in his favor, these damn road losses, especially as compared to how other tougher Xavier teams would have handled certain of these games (e.g. Auburn, the West Coast non-sense and DePaul), are causes for concern.

3. Mostly agree. This season, next season and thereafter, assuming clear improvement next season.

4. I hope you don't think I'm pretending that everything is okay. I'm considering context - recent issues the new conference, etc. - but I certainly don't think everything is okay.

[RedsX11]

My late dad used to have a saying that I hold dear. He said, son you can't hit a home run every time you go to the plate. So, with the odds you just outlined it may be time for a whiff. I for one don't want to take that chance when there seems so much more to lose than to gain under the current circumstances.

Also, so there's no confusion, I support Coach Mack and do not support replacing him.

That is probably the most logical thing I have read lately in regards to this. I want Mack gone. But I suppose that I'll take the current situation where we are still a good team who is going to compete for 20 wins a season, versus what it could possibly be.

[LadyMuskie]

So, Lady, whose on your short list of replacements that would be such a dramatic upgrade from Coach Mack. Remember, we are Xavier and not Duke, or Kentucky, or any other school that will pay huge bucks for a coach. So, you're left with some unproven assistant from somewhere who may not recruit well, win at home, understand Xavier's tradition, oh but may win a lot of road games. And, if he is worth his weight in salt and makes a huge splash, then he will be gone to another school where he can make more money. The floor is yours ma'am. I anxiously await your list.

Oh, I get it. So we should clutch on to Mack no matter what out of fear of the unknown. Because we're not Duke, we should just accept what we're getting and be happy Mack is an alum and won't leave us? Honestly, that kind of thinking, in my opinion, will destroy the program and Macks career with it. Yikes.

[boozehound]

I think he gets next year. At some point, using the Dez Wells and brawl excuses become old hat. Time to move on. It happened. It sucked. We're not the only team in America to lose a talented player for one reason or another. Miller had to let Dedrick Finn go, and while not the caliber of talent as Wells, it is not as though Mack is the first or only coach to ever face some adversity and have to adjust accordingly.

Didn't Finn get kicked off the team during his Senior season? That's pretty different than losing a Freshman, to the point that I'm not really sure drawing the comparison adds anything to the discussion.

I agree that the Dez Wells excuses are getting tired, though. If this team doesn't finish this year strong, and then has another sub-par year next year, I'm going to be off the Mack bandwagon. I've been a big supporter, but it's time for him to deliver some wins again.

[drudy23]

That kind of stuff always make me laugh..."Well if you're going to replace him, give me your list of who can replace him..who's out there"?

Like I have the slightest clue...that's the AD's job, not mine. Like Lady's (or anyone else that's not the AD) list would even mean anything if she had one.

[LA Muskie]

That kind of stuff always make me laugh..."Well if you're going to replace him, give me your list of who can replace him..who's out there"?

Like I have the slightest clue...that's the AD's job, not mine. Like Lady's (or anyone else that's not the AD) list would even mean anything if she had one.
Exactly. We should all pretend we know how to coach high-major D-1 basketball. But pretending we know how to be an AD is off limits...

[mohr5150]

You also have to factor in the transfer of Martin, Lyons, and the fact that Semaj left early. Those are high recruits that left who could have had a seriously positive affect on last year/this year. It's not just the Dez Wells issue causing problems for this season. There have been many potholes dug in Mack's road to success that he's had to dodge. That's why he gets paid the big bucks, but it also explains why things have not run so smoothly for him the past few years.

[IM4X]

I am not ready to talk about replacing Mack. There is a lot of season left... But Mack needs to grow up as much as his players.

He does a nice job of recruiting and at times has his team plays well. But, It is a cop-out for him to just say things like, "players need to grow up'" and not at all mention/ take ownership that he (the coach) needs to get better and change the way he is preparing the players and getting through to them during the game. Any good coach has to accept responsibility for a team who is not playing up to their potential.

What does it say about you as a coach if you blame everything on your players and take no responsibility. It says the coach is in need of "growing up" a bit himself.

He mentions during the post press conference that he's going to keep working on drills... But maybe the drills are not working. He needs to be dissecting every minute of every game they lost and see what specific bad decisions were made by individuals on offense and defense which lead to negative momentum swings to happen again and again during away games. He needs to be open to making any changes to the offense or defense that may help even if it may be different from what Prosser taught him. He needs to be open to changing how he calls timeouts. He needs to watch teams like Texas A & M and make notes of the things they did to almost beat a much more talented Kentucky team (Note: A&M's achilles heal was their poor foul shooting). He needs to find answered not excuses.

Rebounds were a big reason X lost to Butler but they were hardly the only reason. It's up to you, Mack, to make this talented team play better on the road. It's time you took responsibility when the players you recruited are not in position and are not hustling and not taking good shots and not defending well.

Show us you have it in you to be a great coach who can see the mistakes you and your players are making and fix them...and that you are not just an average coach who just throws his hands up in the air and blames everything that goes wrong on the his players.

[vee4xu]

That kind of stuff always make me laugh..."Well if you're going to replace him, give me your list of who can replace him..who's out there"?

Like I have the slightest clue...that's the AD's job, not mine. Like Lady's (or anyone else that's not the AD) list would even mean anything if she had one.
I'm enjoying watching the slow dance you and Lady are doing on this topic. Here, let me turn down the music for you. Enjoy! I just figured if you're smart enough to know Coach Mack should be fired you'd have some knowledge of whose a good replacement candidate. My bad.

[drudy23]

I never claimed to be smart enough to 1) do Coach Mack's job, and 2) do the AD's job. I just pretend like the rest of us. Let's not assume any of our opinions on these matters actually matter. I REALLY hope you're smart enough to know that.

I'm here for entertainment purposes only.

[XU 87]

While I have my issues with the constant losing on the road, it's waaaay to early to be talking about "replacing coach Mack". And let's not forget, we have some very good home wins this season.

[GoMuskies]

I bet 'brew could name 6 coaches in the Big South not named Kelsey who are better coaches than Chris Mack.

OK, probably not, but I bet he could name 6 coaches in the Big South not named Kelsey, which is a blend of impressive and disturbing.

[LadyMuskie]

I am not ready to talk about replacing Mack. There is a lot of season left... But Mack needs to grow up as much as his players.

He does a nice job of recruiting and at times has his team plays well. But, It is a cop-out for him to just say things like, "players need to grow up'" and not at all mention/ take ownership that he (the coach) needs to get better and change the way he is preparing the players and getting through to them during the game. Any good coach has to accept responsibility for a team who is not playing up to their potential.

What does it say about you as a coach if you blame everything on your players and take no responsibility. It says the coach is in need of "growing up" a bit himself.

He mentions during the post press conference that he's going to keep working on drills... But maybe the drills are not working. He needs to be dissecting every minute of every game they lost and see what specific bad decisions were made by individuals on offense and defense which lead to negative momentum swings to happen again and again during away games. He needs to be open to making any changes to the offense or defense that may help even if it may be different from what Prosser taught him. He needs to be open to changing how he calls timeouts. He needs to watch teams like Texas A & M and make notes of the things they did to almost beat a much more talented Kentucky team (Note: A&M's achilles heal was their poor foul shooting). He needs to find answered not excuses.

Rebounds were a big reason X lost to Butler but they were hardly the only reason. It's up to you, Mack, to make this talented team play better on the road. It's time you took responsibility when the players you recruited are not in position and are not hustling and not taking good shots and not defending well.

Show us you have it in you to be a great coach who can see the mistakes you and your players are making and fix them...and that you are not just an average coach who just throws his hands up in the air and blames everything that goes wrong on the his players.

I completely agree with this.

[nuts4xu]

http://jdsrockinsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ohNO.jpg

[XU 87]

I bet 'brew could name 6 coaches in the Big South not named Kelsey who are better coaches than Chris Mack.

OK, probably not, but I bet he could name 6 coaches in the Big South not named Kelsey, which is a blend of impressive and disturbing.

Brew is the only X I guy I know who watched a Villanova preseason game on tv.

[LadyMuskie]

I'm enjoying watching the slow dance you and Lady are doing on this topic. Here, let me turn down the music for you. Enjoy! I just figured if you're smart enough to know Coach Mack should be fired you'd have some knowledge of whose a good replacement candidate. My bad.

I typed out a long response to this, and then erased it. Mack's lucky to have an unquestioning, loyal supporter such as yourself, Vee.

[XU 87]

I typed out a long response to this, and then erased it. Mack's lucky to have an unquestioning, loyal supporter such as yourself, Vee.

I'm not on the "Fire Mack" bandwagon, but if Mack were to leave I would talk to Archie Miller. Not only is he a good coach, but just think of the bragging rights and message board ammunition that would bring.

[ChicagoX]

Mack is a good, but not great coach. He seems to recruit well but doesn't do as good of a job developing players the way his predecessors did. I see this program routinely going to the NCAA Tournament under his watch, but I don't anticipate us getting back to the level of routine Sweet 16s like we did with Matta, Miller and earlier in Mack's career when he had a loaded line-up of Miller's players.

Mack's teams just don't have the discipline, intensity, consistency and defensive prowess needed to win conference titles and routinely advance deep into the tourney. I see plenty of 20-win seasons, top 5 finishes in the Big East and decent seeding, but then frequently ending the season with losses in the round of 64 or 32. I don't think X will win many Big East titles or NCAA games with Mack as the coach. I know he started hot, but I think Mack might have hit his ceiling with Sweet 16 appearances in two of his first three seasons.

Xavier will still be a solid program, but I just don't think you will see us playing in the second weekend of the tournament as we've been accustomed to the past decade.

Does anyone here think we are better off with Mack compared to Matta or Miller? This isn't a knock on Mack because as I said above, he's a good, but not great coach. At the end of the day, he just isn't as good of a head coach as the two who came before him, and it's tough as fans because we saw this program peak this past decade under the best two coaches in our history. Anything less than that seems like underachievement, unrealistic as it may be.

I wrote this post after the end of last season and still stand by it. Mack is a good, but not great coach.

I see Xavier being a bubble team most years that gets to the NCAAs about three or four out of every five years in the 9-12 seed range and loses most years in the round of 64 (or 68) with occasional visits to the round of 32. Sweet 16s will be very few and far between for the Xavier program with Mack as our coach.

Mack just doesn't have the coaching acumen and ability to motivate players like his predecessors did, and that is why we see lapses in defense that you rarely saw under Matta or Miller and very poor performances away from home. He's similar to Prosser in that aspect. I just think he hit his ceiling the first few years when he had a loaded line-up.

[bleedXblue]

I wrote this post after the end of last season and still stand by it. Mack is a good, but not great coach.

I see Xavier being a bubble team most years that gets to the NCAAs about three or four out of every five years in the 9-12 seed range and loses most years in the round of 64 (or 68) with occasional visits to the round of 32. Sweet 16s will be very few and far between for the Xavier program with Mack as our coach.

Mack just doesn't have the coaching acumen and ability to motivate players like his predecessors did, and that is why we see lapses in defense that you rarely saw under Matta or Miller and very poor performances away from home. He's similar to Prosser in that aspect. I just think he hit his ceiling the first few years when he had a loaded line-up.

Wow. Pretty much dead nuts on.......

[LadyMuskie]

I'm not on the "Fire Mack" bandwagon, but if Mack were to leave I would talk to Archie Miller. Not only is he a good coach, but just think of the bragging rights and message board ammunition that would bring.

I'm not on that bandwagon either. Yet.

If we hired away Archie, I'm pretty sure the dayton area would implode. Plus, it would really take away from my accusing dayton of taking our sloppy seconds by hiring our former coach's baby brother.


I wrote this post after the end of last season and still stand by it. Mack is a good, but not great coach.

I see Xavier being a bubble team most years that gets to the NCAAs about three or four out of every five years in the 9-12 seed range and loses most years in the round of 64 (or 68) with occasional visits to the round of 32. Sweet 16s will be very few and far between for the Xavier program with Mack as our coach.

Mack just doesn't have the coaching acumen and ability to motivate players like his predecessors did, and that is why we see lapses in defense that you rarely saw under Matta or Miller and very poor performances away from home. He's similar to Prosser in that aspect. I just think he hit his ceiling the first few years when he had a loaded line-up.

This is spot on. As I said earlier in this thread, watching Mack's teams is like Prosser at Xavier Round Two. Not great. Not bad. Just, meh with some excitement thrown in here and there.

[XU 87]

I wrote this post after the end of last season and still stand by it. Mack is a good, but not great coach.

I see Xavier being a bubble team most years that gets to the NCAAs about three or four out of every five years in the 9-12 seed range and loses most years in the round of 64 (or 68) with occasional visits to the round of 32. Sweet 16s will be very few and far between for the Xavier program with Mack as our coach.

Mack just doesn't have the coaching acumen and ability to motivate players like his predecessors did, and that is why we see lapses in defense that you rarely saw under Matta or Miller and very poor performances away from home. He's similar to Prosser in that aspect. I just think he hit his ceiling the first few years when he had a loaded line-up.

I remember people saying similar things about Matta (before the run) and Miller (until about midway through his third year).

I realize Mack is in his 6th year, but he had to deal with some problems that Matta and Miller didn't have.

[GoMuskies]

I remember people saying similar things about Matta (before the run) and Miller (until about midway through his third year).

One difference is that those things were said in Matta's and Miller's third years according to your post. Mack is in year 6. Also, I'm not disputing what you've said, but it seems amazing to me that in two years at Xavier Matta had twice as many NCAA wins than Xavier had in the previous 10 years combined and people were complaining about him. Mind-blowing, actually.

[drudy23]

Matta and Miller were in-your-face, high accountability guys. Guys that weren't tough became tough...and guys that were tough became warriors. Much tougher on the court and between the ears. With that comes some "gangsters", but you have to be able to temper the positive toughness with the negative toughness. They were much better at that, especially Miller.

There's a reason why Miller loved Mark Lyons.

[XU 87]

One difference is that those things were said in Matta's and Miller's third years according to your post. Mack is in year 6. Also, I'm not disputing what you've said, but it seems amazing to me that in two years at Xavier Matta had twice as many NCAA wins than Xavier had in the previous 10 years combined and people were complaining about him. Mind-blowing, actually.

I agree, the Matta criticism was a little mind blowing. And it told me something. To some people- a coach is as good as his last game.

I heard Bronco fans were booing Peyton Manning yesterday. Really?

(And it looks like I edited my initial post as you were responding to it).

[LadyMuskie]

One difference is that those things were said in Matta's and Miller's third years according to your post. Mack is in year 6. Also, I'm not disputing what you've said, but it seems amazing to me that in two years at Xavier Matta had twice as many NCAA wins than Xavier had in the previous 10 years combined and people were complaining about him. Mind-blowing, actually.

The other difference is that Matta and Miller started off slow but then improved. Additionally, a lot of Miller's issues stemmed from going from friend/assistant coach to head coach. At least Mack didn't have to deal with that.

[LadyMuskie]

I agree, the Matta criticism was a little mind blowing. And it told me something. To some people- a coach is as good as his last game.

I heard Bronco fans were booing Peyton Manning yesterday. Really?

(And it looks like I edited my initial post as you were responding to it).

I wasn't on here when Matta was coaching. I don't remember too many people around me griping about him. I do remember he was big on personal accountability, though. After that Duquesne game was supposed to be an alumni gathering in Duff's with Matta and some of the players. We waited and waited and waited for someone/anyone to show up. After about 35 minutes, Matta shows up with no voice, pissed as hell and says to all of us still there (ad libbing, of course, because I don't remember exactly what he said word for word) "I take full responsibility for what you just witnessed and it will not happen again."

[casualfan]

Finally had a chance to go back and look at the game after giving myself a few days to let it soak in. Here are some of my key thoughts.

Stain: It is very rare you see a guy score 21 points and play a bad game, but IMHO that is exactly what happened here. Matt was pretty good offensively. He scored 21 and only turned it over once in 30 minutes. No one will argue with those stats. On the flip side he was absolutely miserable defensively. What is the old saying, "if you score 25, but the guy you're guarding gets 30...". This wasn't quite that bad, but the big white kid for Butler abused Matt in the paint. He scored 19 in only 24 minutes. Matt also only corraled 5 rebounds which while not terrible isn't exactly great for a guy that size playing those kinds of minutes. In addition to that he only had 2 assists. Again, not terrible for a big, but with the way Matt plays that number needs to be higher if teams are going to keep doubling him in the post

Trevon: Another lackluster offensive performance for Mr. Bluiett. He was 4-10 from the field and only 1-5 from deep. I am starting to wonder if he is getting tired. That's not uncommon for a frosh and if you factor in the weight he added before this season it would almost seem to be expected (although maybe not this early). He also played 34 minutes which brings me to my next point...

Substitutions: Can anyone explain to me why Larry Austin got in this game and Brandon Randolph did not? Austin had not played in 7 of the previous 13 games and in 3 of the 6 he did he played 2 minutes or less. Conversely Randolph is shooting 67% from 3 (albeit in limited attempts) and might have been able to provide an offensive spark. Dee was 5-15 from the field in 37 minutes. Tough to expect guys to play hard for that manyt minutes. In addition to that head scratcher Myles only played 13 minutes and Macura only played 11. Who might they have played over you ask? See the previous bullet point. The other that caught my eye is Jimmy playing more minutes than Jalen. Jalen dominated when he was in going 4-5 from the field with 5 boards. I understand he fouled out which limited his minutes and brings us to my next point..

Defense: There is no debating our d versus Butler was awful giving up 88 points. One of the things I wonder when watching this team is why we don't play more zone. Jalen was a force on the post and is a much better defender/rebounder than Matt is. When he got in foul trouble, why would not at least go zone for a bit against a team shooting 35% from 3? It's not like our perimeter defense is very good in man anyways. Furthermore, Butler basically has two guys who can shoot from 3: Dunham and Barlow. That makes it a hell of a lot easier to play zone when you can focus in on those two as really the only options to make shots.

Free Throws: Butler committed 25 fouls. We committed 26. Not a huge difference, right? Wrong. Butler shot 32-42 from the line. We shot 19-25. That's right. They made more FT than we took. You can't win like that. Those numbers tell me Butler's fouls were in the flow of the defense (i.e. defending entry passes, trying to steal from dribblers in front of them, etc.). The number of foul shots we gave up tells me there were a lot of fouls not in the flow of the defense (i.e. guys gets beat off the dribble of on a pass and is forced to foul a guy who is going up at the rim).

Rebounding: Despite taking a similar number of FG attempts (52 for Butler, 56 for us) Butler pulled down 11 more rebounds than we did (37 to 26), including 13 offensive boards. That unacceptable. You can't give opponents extra possessions and it goes back to what i said earlier about Matt. There is more to being a good big man than just scoring. You have to be a rim protector and defend well. You have to rebound well. We need whoever is playing the 5 spot to be a good player, not just a good scorer.

There is more, but those were the main things I saw.

[boozehound]

The rebounding stats are particularly embarassing. James, Jalen, and Matt should be ashamed of themselves for getting outrebounded by a much smaller front court like that. The only word I can think of for that is soft.

I hope that Mack is good enough to identify adjustments he needs to make to his coaching style and implement them. I dont't know why guys are allowed to put forth lackluster defensive efforts. Energy and effort should be a given.

[bleedXblue]

The rebounding stats are particularly embarassing. James, Jalen, and Matt should be ashamed of themselves for getting outrebounded by a much smaller front court like that. The only word I can think of for that is soft.

I hope that Mack is good enough to identify adjustments he needs to make to his coaching style and implement them. I dont't know why guys are allowed to put forth lackluster defensive efforts. Energy and effort should be a given.

Yes, please. This team plays with no purpose or sense of urgency. We're too nice....and that includes the coach. I'd like to see someone get actually pissed off on the court. Please SHOW us you care about getting your ass handed to you. Its one thing to lose, its another thing to get bitch slapped and turn the other cheek.

[Xville]

The rebounding stats are particularly embarassing. James, Jalen, and Matt should be ashamed of themselves for getting outrebounded by a much smaller front court like that. The only word I can think of for that is soft.

I hope that Mack is good enough to identify adjustments he needs to make to his coaching style and implement them. I dont't know why guys are allowed to put forth lackluster defensive efforts. Energy and effort should be a given.

If I were Mack, one thing that I would try is take the game film, edit it to show all the rebounds that Butler took away from us, and show it basically on a loop for James, Jalen and Matt. Furthermore, I would also take all the times that Xavier's guards played the O-LAY defense and let Butler's guards breeze right past them and shoot a layup...again play it on a loop for those guys. If seeing that doesn't make these players angy, as well as motivated, then these are the kinds of guys that I don't want on the team.

[xsteve1]

I wrote this post after the end of last season and still stand by it. Mack is a good, but not great coach.

I see Xavier being a bubble team most years that gets to the NCAAs about three or four out of every five years in the 9-12 seed range and loses most years in the round of 64 (or 68) with occasional visits to the round of 32. Sweet 16s will be very few and far between for the Xavier program with Mack as our coach.

Mack just doesn't have the coaching acumen and ability to motivate players like his predecessors did, and that is why we see lapses in defense that you rarely saw under Matta or Miller and very poor performances away from home. He's similar to Prosser in that aspect. I just think he hit his ceiling the first few years when he had a loaded line-up.

Unfortunately I can't disagree with this.

[xudash]

The concept of infusing TOUGHNESS into his teams has become a clear developmental need here, it seems. And that makes sense to me.

[bigdiggins]

Finally had a chance to go back and look at the game after giving myself a few days to let it soak in. Here are some of my key thoughts.

Stain: It is very rare you see a guy score 21 points and play a bad game, but IMHO that is exactly what happened here. Matt was pretty good offensively. He scored 21 and only turned it over once in 30 minutes. No one will argue with those stats. On the flip side he was absolutely miserable defensively. What is the old saying, "if you score 25, but the guy you're guarding gets 30...". This wasn't quite that bad, but the big white kid for Butler abused Matt in the paint. He scored 19 in only 24 minutes. Matt also only corraled 5 rebounds which while not terrible isn't exactly great for a guy that size playing those kinds of minutes. In addition to that he only had 2 assists. Again, not terrible for a big, but with the way Matt plays that number needs to be higher if teams are going to keep doubling him in the post

Trevon: Another lackluster offensive performance for Mr. Bluiett. He was 4-10 from the field and only 1-5 from deep. I am starting to wonder if he is getting tired. That's not uncommon for a frosh and if you factor in the weight he added before this season it would almost seem to be expected (although maybe not this early). He also played 34 minutes which brings me to my next point...

Substitutions: Can anyone explain to me why Larry Austin got in this game and Brandon Randolph did not? Austin had not played in 7 of the previous 13 games and in 3 of the 6 he did he played 2 minutes or less. Conversely Randolph is shooting 67% from 3 (albeit in limited attempts) and might have been able to provide an offensive spark. Dee was 5-15 from the field in 37 minutes. Tough to expect guys to play hard for that manyt minutes. In addition to that head scratcher Myles only played 13 minutes and Macura only played 11. Who might they have played over you ask? See the previous bullet point. The other that caught my eye is Jimmy playing more minutes than Jalen. Jalen dominated when he was in going 4-5 from the field with 5 boards. I understand he fouled out which limited his minutes and brings us to my next point..

Defense: There is no debating our d versus Butler was awful giving up 88 points. One of the things I wonder when watching this team is why we don't play more zone. Jalen was a force on the post and is a much better defender/rebounder than Matt is. When he got in foul trouble, why would not at least go zone for a bit against a team shooting 35% from 3? It's not like our perimeter defense is very good in man anyways. Furthermore, Butler basically has two guys who can shoot from 3: Dunham and Barlow. That makes it a hell of a lot easier to play zone when you can focus in on those two as really the only options to make shots.

Free Throws: Butler committed 25 fouls. We committed 26. Not a huge difference, right? Wrong. Butler shot 32-42 from the line. We shot 19-25. That's right. They made more FT than we took. You can't win like that. Those numbers tell me Butler's fouls were in the flow of the defense (i.e. defending entry passes, trying to steal from dribblers in front of them, etc.). The number of foul shots we gave up tells me there were a lot of fouls not in the flow of the defense (i.e. guys gets beat off the dribble of on a pass and is forced to foul a guy who is going up at the rim).

Rebounding: Despite taking a similar number of FG attempts (52 for Butler, 56 for us) Butler pulled down 11 more rebounds than we did (37 to 26), including 13 offensive boards. That unacceptable. You can't give opponents extra possessions and it goes back to what i said earlier about Matt. There is more to being a good big man than just scoring. You have to be a rim protector and defend well. You have to rebound well. We need whoever is playing the 5 spot to be a good player, not just a good scorer.

There is more, but those were the main things I saw.

Jalen's defense was terrible in the first half. He would half hedge, and then just stand there at the free throw line. At least three easy lay-ups when he neither pressured the ball, nor recovered to his man.

[casualfan]

If I were Mack, one thing that I would try is take the game film, edit it to show all the rebounds that Butler took away from us, and show it basically on a loop for James, Jalen and Matt. Furthermore, I would also take all the times that Xavier's guards played the O-LAY defense and let Butler's guards breeze right past them and shoot a layup...again play it on a loop for those guys. If seeing that doesn't make these players angy, as well as motivated, then these are the kinds of guys that I don't want on the team.

I don't know why he'd show it to Jalen. He had a good game rebounding and was only limited by foul trouble.

Regarding Stain, it's not going to do much/any good. He is what he is: a really good offensive player that struggles mightily moving his feet defensively and rebounding out of his area. There are certain things about guys you can't change and try as they might Matt isn't going to get any quicker or jump any higher.

My biggest problem with that is the failure to put a team around him to offset his deficiencies. It's really a shame because Matt is a special player in certain context.

You can't surround a slow unathletic center with slow unathletic teammates and expect it to work.

I think a lot of this speaks to a bigger issue which is Mack's ability to build a team. There is no doubt he has compiled a group of very good basketball players. The problem is that a group of very talented basketball players doesn't necessarily equal a very good team.

Right now this team is too one dimensional. We have way too many guys who are offensively oriented and to get more specific jumpshot oriented.

Other than Remy and Jalen this team doesn't have a single player with the skills to be a lockdown defender. Don't believe me?

Dee- too small
Randolph- too small
Austin- Ditto the first two
Stain- see previous three
Bluiett- see previous 4
Macura - see previous 5
Farr- Not athletic enough to guard 4's and not physical enough to guard 5's.

That's 7 of your top 9 guys who struggle mightily on the defensive end. You can't win like that.

I know everyone says it is want to and coach 'em up and all that BS, but at some point guys just don't have the physical tools to be good defenders. Unfortunately I see that as the case with most of the guys playing big minutes for us right now.

[casualfan]

Jalen's defense was terrible in the first half. He would half hedge, and then just stand there at the free throw line. At least three easy lay-ups when he neither pressured the ball, nor recovered to his man.

And he is still a much better defender than Matt...

[D-West & PO-Z]

I vividly remember a play in which Jalen and Myles switched for a moment defensively and Myles switched right back, I believe expecting Jalen to fall back, and when Jalen did not the ball went right to that guy for a wide open layup. At the time I thought it looked like Myles fault, but as I think back again I think it was expected Jalen quickly fall back to that man. Either one of them messed up or both did bc there was no communication. My bet is probably it was more on Jalen, he seems to be lost a lot on defense. Other than being athletic I dont know what would make anyone thing he could be a lock down defender.

[Xville]

I don't know why he'd show it to Jalen. He had a good game rebounding and was only limited by foul trouble.

Regarding Stain, it's not going to do much/any good. He is what he is: a really good offensive player that struggles mightily moving his feet defensively and rebounding out of his area. There are certain things about guys you can't change and try as they might Matt isn't going to get any quicker or jump any higher.

My biggest problem with that is the failure to put a team around him to offset his deficiencies. It's really a shame because Matt is a special player in certain context.

You can't surround a slow unathletic center with slow unathletic teammates and expect it to work.

I think a lot of this speaks to a bigger issue which is Mack's ability to build a team. There is no doubt he has compiled a group of very good basketball players. The problem is that a group of very talented basketball players doesn't necessarily equal a very good team.

Right now this team is too one dimensional. We have way too many guys who are offensively oriented and to get more specific jumpshot oriented.

Other than Remy and Jalen this team doesn't have a single player with the skills to be a lockdown defender. Don't believe me?

Dee- too small
Randolph- too small
Austin- Ditto the first two
Stain- see previous three
Bluiett- see previous 4
Macura - see previous 5
Farr- Not athletic enough to guard 4's and not physical enough to guard 5's.

That's 7 of your top 9 guys who struggle mightily on the defensive end. You can't win like that.

I know everyone says it is want to and coach 'em up and all that BS, but at some point guys just don't have the physical tools to be good defenders. Unfortunately I see that as the case with most of the guys playing big minutes for us right now.

I agree in the sense that there are a lot of guys that don't necessarily have the physical tools to ever be lockdown defenders. However, the whole "want to" and "coach'em up" that you say is bs, is not at all bs. Defense is at the very least 50% will, especially when it comes to rebounding. Are you telling me that Matt can't find someone to put his behind into when a shot goes up? You sound like a person with a defeatist attitude of "I can't" when really it comes down to "I won't because it's hard or it doesn't show up much on the stat sheet."

This team may not be the best defensive team in the history of Xavier basketball, but they can be coached up and have the effort enough to be a decent defense. No way are these guys trying their best when they are getting outrebounded by freaking Butler by 12...do you think those guys have better physical tools than the Xavier team to play defense? Give me a break.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I agree in the sense that there are a lot of guys that don't necessarily have the physical tools to ever be lockdown defenders. However, the whole "want to" and "coach'em up" that you say is bs, is not at all bs. Defense is at the very least 50% will, especially when it comes to rebounding. Are you telling me that Matt can't find someone to put his behind into when a shot goes up? You sound like a person with a defeatist attitude of "I can't" when really it comes down to "I won't because it's hard or it doesn't show up much on the stat sheet."

This team may not be the best defensive team in the history of Xavier basketball, but they can be coached up and have the effort enough to be a decent defense. No way are these guys trying their best when they are getting outrebounded by freaking Butler by 12...do you think those guys have better physical tools than the Xavier team to play defense? Give me a break.

Yeah I agree. We dont need 9 lockdown defenders. We need 9 capable defenders who dont get burned on every drive to the basket. There is a lot of effort involved in what we are seeing. Effort and mental toughness, sometimes I think a lot of our players too easily get lackadaisical just because they arent thinking all the time when they are out there. Very frustrating.

[casualfan]

I agree in the sense that there are a lot of guys that don't necessarily have the physical tools to ever be lockdown defenders. However, the whole "want to" and "coach'em up" that you say is bs, is not at all bs. Defense is at the very least 50% will, especially when it comes to rebounding. Are you telling me that Matt can't find someone to put his behind into when a shot goes up? You sound like a person with a defeatist attitude of "I can't" when really it comes down to "I won't because it's hard or it doesn't show up much on the stat sheet."

This team may not be the best defensive team in the history of Xavier basketball, but they can be coached up and have the effort enough to be a decent defense. No way are these guys trying their best when they are getting outrebounded by freaking Butler by 12...do you think those guys have better physical tools than the Xavier team to play defense? Give me a break.

That's why i said "at some point guys just don't have the physical tools to be good defenders".

Take me for example. I am a 5 '7 unathletic guy. If you put me on the floor I guarantee you I would want to as much as the next guy, but the skills just aren't there. I'm not big enough and I'm certainly not quick enough.

At some point it doesn't matter how much you want it and IMHO we have too many guys where it's not going to matter how much they want it.

Yes, Matt can put his backside into someone. And with his incredibly limited mobility if the rebound doesn't fall exactly where he did that he ain't going to get it.

That's the point. These guys have physical limitations that regardless of how much you coach them up aren't going to change.

At one point the other day we had a lineup out there of :

Dee
Myles
Trevon
Jimmy
Matt

I don't care how much that group tries, if the team we are playing plays smart basketball and executes that group is going to get scored on. In that lineup you have no one that is a threat to get into the passing lanes. You have no one that is a threat to block a shot.

People keep saying this can be a decent defensive team. I'm curious why people think that. Decent defensive teams don't consistently run lineups out there made up of 4 or 5 below-average defenders. You can do it with 2 or 3 below-average guys, but unless you have a dominant rim protector (i.e. Willie Cauley-Stein or the kid from UCONN) you can't run 4 below-average guys out there and expect to be decent.

[GoMuskies]

People would probably look at John Stockton and think that he wasn't physically capable of guarding NBA point guards, and he's just the NBA's all-time leader in steals (he has 20% more steals than the guy in second place). Still, no one would probably think of Stockton as a great defensive player, but he somewhat made up for his liability as an on the ball defender and created defensive value by getting his hands on lots of balls on the defensive end. So even if a guy doesn't have the physical tools to be a great one on one defender, that doesn't mean he has to be a liability on the defensive end.

[drudy23]

That's why i said "at some point guys just don't have the physical tools to be good defenders".

Take me for example. I am a 5 '7 unathletic guy. If you put me on the floor I guarantee you I would want to as much as the next guy, but the skills just aren't there. I'm not big enough and I'm certainly not quick enough.

At some point it doesn't matter how much you want it and IMHO we have too many guys where it's not going to matter how much they want it.

Yes, Matt can put his backside into someone. And with his incredibly limited mobility if the rebound doesn't fall exactly where he did that he ain't going to get it.

That's the point. These guys have physical limitations that regardless of how much you coach them up aren't going to change.

At one point the other day we had a lineup out there of :

Dee
Myles
Trevon
Jimmy
Matt

I don't care how much that group tries, if the team we are playing plays smart basketball and executes that group is going to get scored on. In that lineup you have no one that is a threat to get into the passing lanes. You have no one that is a threat to block a shot.

People keep saying this can be a decent defensive team. I'm curious why people think that. Decent defensive teams don't consistently run lineups out there made up of 4 or 5 below-average defenders. You can do it with 2 or 3 below-average guys, but unless you have a dominant rim protector (i.e. Willie Cauley-Stein or the kid from UCONN) you can't run 4 below-average guys out there and expect to be decent.

I think your thoughts are dead wrong. Any D-I basketball player is CAPABLE of being a good defender. You, at 5'7" and unathletic, are not. Regardless of how athletic you think they are, they are 100x more athletic than that. D-I college athletes are, for the most part, freaks of nature. Even when you think they're not quick, strong, fast, jump, etc, etc, etc.....they are.

[xufan2434]

I think something that's going unnoticed is that Mack recruited these guys for a reason. He wanted more offense than what he's been getting the last two years and so that's what he went out and got. It just so happens a lot of those guys are not the good at defense on their own.

However there's a lot of good defensive teams that don't exactly have the best athletes. Look at UVA and Wisconsin. You think the white guys Wisconsin are throwing out there are intimidating to anyone as freshman? No, but Bo Ryan built a system and develops his players to play disciplined 2 way basketball. This team might not have the natural ability to play really good defense, but I agree any quality team can be play good team defense with the right coaching and attitude. I love our bigs in the sense that I know they wanna do their best every single night. But they honestly look intimidated half the time, especially Farr. They don't have that attitude on defense that they're gonna get physical and shut someone down. They tend to try to take short cuts and get lazy which leads to fouls.

[waggy]

There's a reason why Miller loved Mark Lyons.

Yeah, but Lyons didn't perform an impression of Linda Blair's Regan for a national TV audience while at Arizona.

[waggy]

Yes, please. This team plays with no purpose or sense of urgency. We're too nice....and that includes the coach. I'd like to see someone get actually pissed off on the court. Please SHOW us you care about getting your ass handed to you. Its one thing to lose, its another thing to get bitch slapped and turn the other cheek.

I'm sure you've noticed that X players now often help opponents off the floor when they go down. This is obviously a directive from above and should send Gladdenguy into a frenzy.

[LadyMuskie]

The rebounding stats are particularly embarassing. James, Jalen, and Matt should be ashamed of themselves for getting outrebounded by a much smaller front court like that. The only word I can think of for that is soft.

I hope that Mack is good enough to identify adjustments he needs to make to his coaching style and implement them. I dont't know why guys are allowed to put forth lackluster defensive efforts. Energy and effort should be a given.

I agree we're soft and lacking. But, I wonder if Mack sees it as his coaching style that needs adjusting. I've not heard him (and admittedly I don't listen to or read everything he says) this season or last admit that his coaching style was what needed tweaking. He always seems to say it was the players' faults, and that they'll go over it again. If they weren't getting "it" before, I don't think repetition is the issue. I also feel as though implementation and changing course would be easier with a stronger staff behind Mack. Gillen had Prosser. Prosser had Guadio. Matta had Miller. Miller had Mack. Who does Mack have?

[xudash]

You know, per what I just read on the Internet (http://www.goxavier.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/102414aaa.html) there is a Chris Mack radio show tonight.

Who among us in Cincinnati can go to the show and ask constructive questions about building toughness into a team?

Keep helping opposing players off the floor, because that is a class thing to do, but just try to put them on the floor more often, so that we can help them more often, while we win road and away.

[paulxu]

Additionally, a lot of Miller's issues stemmed from going from friend/assistant coach to head coach. At least Mack didn't have to deal with that.

Why not? (just curious)

[bleedXblue]

That's why i said "at some point guys just don't have the physical tools to be good defenders".

Take me for example. I am a 5 '7 unathletic guy. If you put me on the floor I guarantee you I would want to as much as the next guy, but the skills just aren't there. I'm not big enough and I'm certainly not quick enough.

At some point it doesn't matter how much you want it and IMHO we have too many guys where it's not going to matter how much they want it.

Yes, Matt can put his backside into someone. And with his incredibly limited mobility if the rebound doesn't fall exactly where he did that he ain't going to get it.

That's the point. These guys have physical limitations that regardless of how much you coach them up aren't going to change.

At one point the other day we had a lineup out there of :

Dee
Myles
Trevon
Jimmy
Matt

I don't care how much that group tries, if the team we are playing plays smart basketball and executes that group is going to get scored on. In that lineup you have no one that is a threat to get into the passing lanes. You have no one that is a threat to block a shot.

People keep saying this can be a decent defensive team. I'm curious why people think that. Decent defensive teams don't consistently run lineups out there made up of 4 or 5 below-average defenders. You can do it with 2 or 3 below-average guys, but unless you have a dominant rim protector (i.e. Willie Cauley-Stein or the kid from UCONN) you can't run 4 below-average guys out there and expect to be decent.

Not buying it either. This team can get much better defensively. They have the ability to be above average, but it's going to take great effort and relying on each other.

[LadyMuskie]

Why not? (just curious)

I don't know. I just know that his first seasons he didn't experience that particular growing pain like Miller did - or if he did, it wasn't evident. I remember Miller basically coming right out and saying in an interview that going from the assistant coach to the head coach was a difficult process for the entire team. That he was close to the players when Matta was head coach, but when he became head coach he had to also take on that more authoritarian role. It was like going from the role of big brother to the role of dad. I remember players like Justin Cage talking about how much they liked and confided in Miller, and how upset they were Miller's first season that they weren't producing because they wanted to do well for coach.

Maybe Mack made the transition better. Maybe he wasn't that close to the players even as assistant h.c. I have no idea. I'm thankful it wasn't something he had to worry about, though.

[IM4X]

I wasn't on here when Matta was coaching. I don't remember too many people around me griping about him. I do remember he was big on personal accountability, though. After that Duquesne game was supposed to be an alumni gathering in Duff's with Matta and some of the players. We waited and waited and waited for someone/anyone to show up. After about 35 minutes, Matta shows up with no voice, pissed as hell and says to all of us still there (ad libbing, of course, because I don't remember exactly what he said word for word) "I take full responsibility for what you just witnessed and it will not happen again."


That's the exact kind of thing we don't hear from Mack but need to. It shows a coach believes in his ability and knows it's up to him to make things better

It always seems with Mack that it's the players fault. Sure it is partly the players fault, but they came to play for you so you can show them the way. Now quit throwing the players under the bus, own the problems with the team, and show hem the way. It's your job. That's why you get paid the big bucks.

[vee4xu]

I never claimed to be smart enough to 1) do Coach Mack's job, and 2) do the AD's job. I just pretend like the rest of us. Let's not assume any of our opinions on these matters actually matter. I REALLY hope you're smart enough to know that.

I'm here for entertainment purposes only.

Me too. Just bantering.

[vee4xu]

I typed out a long response to this, and then erased it. Mack's lucky to have an unquestioning, loyal supporter such as yourself, Vee.

I do support Coach Mack and most times try to be nice. But, sometimes I go left of center with my posts. :drinks:

[LA Muskie]

That's the exact kind of thing we don't hear from Mack but need to. It shows a coach believes in his ability and knows it's up to him to make things better

It always seems with Mack that it's the players fault. Sure it is partly the players fault, but they came to play for you so you can show them the way. Now quit throwing the players under the bus, own the problems with the team, and show hem the way. It's your job. That's why you get paid the big bucks.
You'll be happy to hear that he gas already put the heat on himself in the 1st segment of the radio show. He said he has not done a very good job of getting guys out who weren't dedicated to defense, and putting the next guy in.

[IM4X]

Jalen's defense was terrible in the first half. He would half hedge, and then just stand there at the free throw line. At least three easy lay-ups when he neither pressured the ball, nor recovered to his man.

Some of the issues Jalen had on D in the first half were due to other players not sticking with their man and so Jalen was stuck trying to pick up the slack.

One time Stain (or maybe it was Travon) lost his man and Jalen tried to switch off his man for a second to keep him from driving for the easy bucket and the player passed it it back off to the guy Jalen was originally supposed to be guarding for an easy bucket.

My point is that when you get stuck trying to guard two players because your teammates aran't doing their job, you will find the odds are you will look bad.

[LA Muskie]

Some of the issues Jalen had on D in the first half were due to other players not sticking with their man and so Jalen was stuck trying to pick up the slack.

One time Stain (or maybe it was Travon) lost his man and Jalen tried to switch off his man for a second to keep him from driving for the easy bucket and the player passed it it back off to the guy Jalen was originally supposed to be guarding for an easy bucket.

My point is that when you get stuck trying to guard two players because your teammates aran't doing their job, you will find the odds are you will look bad.
I think you are being very kind to Jalen.

[IM4X]

You'll be happy to hear that he gas already put the heat on himself in the 1st segment of the radio show. He said he has not done a very good job of getting guys out who weren't dedicated to defense, and putting the next guy in.

That's a start. It's the first time I've heard of that he admitted he needed to do a better job at anything. That is growth and what we can call progress. Though, it still sounds like a back handed way of blaming the players. I'd much rather him, like Matta, say, "I take full responsibility." Plus, to there is more to the problem than him finding players who want to player better D. He needs to teach them how to play better D.

I see where some others on the board are talking about how certain players can't be expected to play better D because of their lack of size or athleticism. I can't completely buy the "size" argument. There were a ton of smallish guards who played great defense for Xavier over the years. Tu is not a big guy. He was good. Lyons was not a tall guy and he was a very good defender. If the excuse Mack has is his players just can't play D, we'll, he either has to find a way to get them playing better or admit he did a bad job of ignoring the defensive abilities of the players he's recruited. Either way it is on Mack.

Now he better hope he knows how to teach these kids how to player better defense and fix some of the other issues, because if he doesn't it looks to be a long season. On the flip side, if he does, this team has the talent to win a lot of games.

[IM4X]

People would probably look at John Stockton and think that he wasn't physically capable of guarding NBA point guards, and he's just the NBA's all-time leader in steals (he has 20% more steals than the guy in second place). Still, no one would probably think of Stockton as a great defensive player, but he somewhat made up for his liability as an on the ball defender and created defensive value by getting his hands on lots of balls on the defensive end. So even if a guy doesn't have the physical tools to be a great one on one defender, that doesn't mean he has to be a liability on the defensive end.

Good point. Great example.

We've had plenty of players who've played on previous X teams who would prove this point too.

Maybe a few exceptions. As much as I really like the guy, I'm not sure Brad Redford was ever not going to be a bit of a liability defensively.

[ChicagoX]

I think X has won 7 of the last 9 against Butler. They're the new Dayton, except actually good most years.