The Coach Chris Mack Reality Thread

[Masterofreality]

There have been a lot of experts commenting, criticizing and otherwise pontificating about this team's recent performances and about the Coaching of one Chris Mack. There has also been quite a bit of commentary comparing Coach Mack to his two predecessors with statements like "we never saw stuff like the Butler game under (Beaknose)or (Desert Raccoon)."

it seems like people on here have quite the short memories or they just refuse to acknowledge differences in overall circumstances between the situations of Beak/Raccoon and CMack. I'm not even going to reference the departure of very good players, not only because of ability, but because of stupidity, that set the program back or the ludicrous NCAA ruling that kept Myles Davis and Jalen Reynolds off the court in 2012-2013. No, it's about the total overall change in circumstance of a significant league upgrade that the previous two Deities never had to deal with.

In CMack's first 3 years, everyone can admit that his results were comparable to his predecessors- 3 NCAA's with 2 Sweet 16's and 2 A10 Championships. With all 3 of our most recent coaches, Xavier had the advantage of recruiting in the A10 because of Cintas Center and won in the A10 with better talent, but even with that, XU could only get, at best 5th or 6th ranked league level talent, not 2nd or 3rd. But the one difference that Mack has had to deal with is the change of leagues upward in last and this year that the other two did not. Consider:

Stat #1: Almost one half of the scholarship players on this present roster (6) committed & signed with Xavier before Xavier was any where near being in a conversation about joining the Big East- that is in 2010, 2011 or 2012. So what, you may say? Well this what. Mack, just as with Beaknose and Raccoon, was recruiting in a pool of players that were available to the 7th - 8th ranked league rather than a pool of players that would be at a level of the 2nd or 3rd ranked league. However now, Xavier is playing schools that have ALWAYS been recruiting at a 2nd/3rd league level. So our older players were recruited in essence to be A10 competitive, not Big East competitive. But, what about Butler you say? Well, they had Brad Stevens leveraging their two final 4's when recruiting, a one off advantage that Mack does not have. Even DePaul with Purnell still had the Big East aura to help them.

Stat #2: Of the 7 players that Xavier has on it's roster that committed/signed since the announcement of Xavier's Big East membership, only Remy Abel has more than 16 games experience. The others are kids, talented kids, but kids who last year were in high school and didn't have to play defense like they do up here. Unlike the previous Xavier classes, they are not getting their feet wet in the 7th ranked league, but the 2nd ranked one. Why should we be surprised if they struggle at times- especially on defense?

Of course critics will point out losses this year to people like Auburn, Long Beach, and DePaul as examples why Mack stinks. Well, my memory is not short, and I remember horrible efforts against average or worse teams under both Toucan (Iowa State, Ball State, Richmond, Dookcane, St. Bonaventure) and Raccoon (Fordham, a bad Tennessee team, a bad Cincinnati team(Cronin's first year), Miami (2 losses), Dookcane & LaSalle). Stinkers happen, and I will criticize coaching moves when they deserve criticism, but let us remember that half this squad was recruited to compete in the A 10 and half are freshman. The ONLY player on this roster that does not fall in either category is Abel.

Am I happy with the effort at Butler last Saturday? No more than I was with the effort at Fordham under Raccoon or at Ball State under Toucan, but I'm willing to let the season play before really being concerned.

Chris Mack is going nowhere soon, unless he, himself generates the move. At least we should give him the benefit of more time in this new league before we damn him to the fiery furnace.

[DC Muskie]

16-21 in tournament and neutral games.

He needs to improve on that.

And stop acting like college sports is about a special learning curve for freshmen. We are watching a team win the national title in football with freshmen and sophomores.

College sports is about youth. It's not something unique to Xavier.

[GoMuskies]

#1 is pretty much an insult to our good A-10 squads. Do you seriously not think our 2008, 2009 and 2010 teams (with 100% of the players recruited to play in the A-10) would have been at or near the top of the current group of Big East schools?!? Child please.

[waggy]

Yeah, Child Please.

Child Please. Child Please. Child Please. I love saying Child Please!

[Masterofreality]

#1 is pretty much an insult to our good A-10 squads. Do you seriously not think our 2008, 2009 and 2010 teams (with 100% of the players recruited to play in the A-10) would have been at or near the top of the current group of Big East schools?!? Child please.

Well, look at the recruiting rankings that so many like to see...and how many of those guys were freshman in those years? None of those players were higher than 3 star, and many were 2 star. Look it up, child.

[Always Learning]

My Lord MOR, a post of reason!
Shocking, absolutely shocking.
No here comes the Hate Squad ... 5, 4, 3, 2 ,

[GoMuskies]

Well, look at the recruiting rankings that so many like to see...and how many of those guys were freshman in those years? None of those players were higher than 3 star, and many were 2 star. Look it up, child.
Who gives a fuck what their recruiting rankings were?

[Masterofreality]

16-21 in tournament and neutral games.

He needs to improve on that.

And stop acting like college sports is about a special learning curve for freshmen. We are watching a team win the national title in football with freshmen and sophomores.

College sports is about youth. It's not something unique to Xavier.

Football is totally different than basketball with only 5 guys on the court. There's lots of upperclassmen on that team too...and they were recruited by Meyer in the same league.

[Masterofreality]

Who gives a fuck what their recruiting rankings were?

If you don't think the league had any influence on where someone went, I give you DSR. Case closed.

[GoMuskies]

If you don't think the league had any influence on where someone went, I give you DSR. Case closed.

We traded DSR for Semaj.

[Masterofreality]

We traded DSR for Semaj.

No, no we did not. Semaj was not recruited to play point.

[DC Muskie]

Football is totally different than basketball with only 5 guys on the court. There's lots of upperclassmen on that team too...and they were recruited by Meyer in the same league.

That's just sad. I'm sorry that's the best you can come up with. Freshmen recruited to play the BIG Ten on one hand. Freshmen recruited to the BE is a liability.

Okay then. I guess football must have unequal sides of the ball. I thought it was 11vs 11.

[GoMuskies]

We weren't getting both of them, so it was essentially a trade.
But more importantly, is it really your contention that our 2008, 2009 and 2010 teams would be struggling just as much in this league as the current team?

[DC Muskie]

While you are remembering all those losses by Matta and Miller. Both of those guys are much than:

16-21.

[GoMuskies]

Tu, Kenny, Semaj, Dante and Jalen were all four star players according to Rivals FWIW. All recruited to play in the A-10.

[DC Muskie]

It's amazing we were able to win any games in the BE last year with all of that experienced A-10 players we had on our roster last year.

I swear this argument just goes in circles. Mack needs to win more road games, win more tournament games in March and November and we need to stop acting like shit happens because shit happened before.

[LadyMuskie]

Good God. I don't even know where to begin. Maybe suggesting that MOR delete this before more people see it would be a start.

Some of the comments in the original post are so perilously close to Mick Cronin's "A10 teams couldn't win in the Big East" I think Cronin may have written the post.

I also think the post is incredibly offensive to some of the great players that have played at X like Ty Hill, David West and James Posey, to name only a few of MANY, who never shied away from competing with the "big boys". It's offensive to all those X teams that beat power conference teams or teams in better conferences with players who, you know, were only 4th or 5th league worthy at best. It's also throwing under the bus the "kids", as they are referred to, who are currently wearing the X uniform in order to support an argument to save an adult who makes a lot of money coaching them. Seriously, did Cronin write this?

And then there are Fr. Graham's quotes about joining the Big East and how it had been in the works for some time before it was announced. I realize that maybe recruits couldn't have been told about the move, but surely Mack was worthy of being in on the big secret. One would think the coaches would have kept that info in the back of their minds when recruiting. Of course, that might explain the 4 star recruits we got. But maybe not.

I'm not really sure how we ever really moved up to the Big East. The arguments made in the original post make it seem as though no school can compete with any team in a league ranked higher. Jesus. This post sounds like all the d-bag posts UC fans and power-conference fans, etc. made that irritated us all and that we knew was just plain wrong. Thanks for your years of play D Brown, Tu Holloway, Romain Sato, Lionel Chalmers, Drew Lavender. Thank goodness you played for us then because you're not worthy of us now.

Ugh.

[DC Muskie]

Good God. I don't even know where to begin. Maybe suggesting that MOR delete this before more people see it would be a start.

Some of the comments in the original post are so perilously close to Mick Cronin's "A10 teams couldn't win in the Big East" I think Cronin may have written the post.

I also think the post is incredibly offensive to some of the great players that have played at X like Ty Hill, David West and James Posey, to name only a few of MANY, who never shied away from competing with the "big boys". It's offensive to all those X teams that beat power conference teams or teams in better conferences with players who, you know, were only 4th or 5th league worthy at best. It's also throwing under the bus the "kids", as they are referred to, who are currently wearing the X uniform in order to support an argument to save an adult who makes a lot of money coaching them. Seriously, did Cronin write this?

And then there are Fr. Graham's quotes about joining the Big East and how it had been in the works for some time before it was announced. I realize that maybe recruits couldn't have been told about the move, but surely Mack was worthy of being in on the big secret. One would think the coaches would have kept that info in the back of their minds when recruiting. Of course, that might explain the 4 star recruits we got. But maybe not.

I'm not really sure how we ever really moved up to the Big East. The arguments made in the original post make it seem as though no school can compete with any team in a league ranked higher. Jesus. This post sounds like all the d-bag posts UC fans and power-conference fans, etc. made that irritated us all and that we knew was just plain wrong. Thanks for your years of play D Brown, Tu Holloway, Romain Sato, Lionel Chalmers, Drew Lavender. Thank goodness you played for us then because you're not worthy of us now.

Ugh.

Exactly.

[X Factor]

We traded DSR for Semaj.

Semaj was a Cincy kid, and didn't want to leave the area for college. He was also a late bloomer.

[waggy]

I'm losing track of what's being argued.

[XU-PA]

I'm losing track of what's being argued.

Something about one handed vs two handed dunks

[Masterofreality]

That's just sad. I'm sorry that's the best you can come up with. Freshmen recruited to play the BIG Ten on one hand. Freshmen recruited to the BE is a liability.

Okay then. I guess football must have unequal sides of the ball. I thought it was 11vs 11.

No, in football good offensive players don't play defense, they platoon. Unfortunately, you can't do that in basketball which is exactly the problem with our first year players. What happened to people that said we'd struggle early?

[Masterofreality]

Tu, Kenny, Semaj, Dante and Jalen were all four star players according to Rivals FWIW. All recruited to play in the A-10.

Tu and Semaj were 4 stars. Stain was a 2 star. Dee, Jimmy Farr, Jalen and Myles were all 3's.

Last time I checked, Tu and Semaj are not on this team to help. We are talking about this team, right?

[Masterofreality]

We weren't getting both of them, so it was essentially a trade.
But more importantly, is it really your contention that our 2008, 2009 and 2010 teams would be struggling just as much in this league as the current team?

No, we continued to recruit both of them. Different positions.

[bleedXblue]

The issues/concerns with Mack are some of the very same we talked about last year. I'm not and I don't think many are....looking for his head. I think many are just frustrated and looking for some improvement in key areas....which seem been lack of effort/intensity and togetherness his teams seem to lack for whatever reason.

[Masterofreality]

And my overall contention is not that Xavier didn't recruit the best players that we could. It is that realistically players that we're going to Top 3 level leagues weren't coming here....up until now.

If the thought process wasn't that we'd be able to recruit a higher level of player that would get us to a National Championship level- a level that we have not been to- then what was it and why change leagues?

[Fireball]

MOR, I would rep you, but I'm told I need to spread it around. So, public reps.

The simple reality (despite the road woes), is that this team is in the best position it has been in 3 seasons. Since the program was decimated after the last Sweet 16 appearance, Mack and his staff continue to rebuild. We all expect excellence, and I have no doubts we will get back there, but until we get back to being a national contender just about every year, I want to see consistent improvement, and we're getting that.

[Masterofreality]

I didn't expect that everyone would agree with my initial post. I'm sure there are other opinions, since like assholes, everyone has one. I respect other opinions, but just be factually correct in your statements like I have tried to do here.

But to criticize Mack and say that he had the same situations both internally and externally to deal with as Beaknose and Raccoon is just wrong.

I've got a big work day today. Have at it. See ya later.

[casualfan]

Tu, Kenny, Semaj, Dante and Jalen were all four star players according to Rivals FWIW. All recruited to play in the A-10.

Myles was also extremely close to a 4th star.

Dee Davis was a 4 star and so was Dez and Justin Martin who were all signed in those 2010-12 classes MOR is talking about.

This argument is about as ridiculous as it gets because the evidence doesn't back it up.

Now, I am not a fan of recruiting rankings, but since that's what the original argument was based on that's what I'll use in my rebuttal:

In 2010, 2011 and 2012 our classes were ranked 22, 21, and 32 respectively.

Our '13, '14 and '15 classes have been ranked 51, 20, and 87 respectively.

Not only did being in the A10 not hurt our recruiting. It seems you could make the argument we were recruiting better when we were the big dog in the A10 as opposed to now.

[LadyMuskie]

MOR, I would rep you, but I'm told I need to spread it around. So, public reps.

The simple reality (despite the road woes), is that this team is in the best position it has been in 3 seasons. Since the program was decimated after the last Sweet 16 appearance, Mack and his staff continue to rebuild. We all expect excellence, and I have no doubts we will get back there, but until we get back to being a national contender just about every year, I want to see consistent improvement, and we're getting that.
I'm sorry, but where do you see consistent improvement? Where do you see consistent anything? One game we look like all stars and the next we couldnt defend the basket without a tank and the 101st airborne.

I'll say this - we were a heck of a lot closer to a national title in years past (including Macks first years) than we are now. And I do not in any way shape or form believe that the majority of the blame for that can bE found with the guys wearing the uniforms.

[casualfan]

Tu and Semaj were 4 stars. Stain was a 2 star. Dee, Jimmy Farr, Jalen and Myles were all 3's.

Last time I checked, Tu and Semaj are not on this team to help. We are talking about this team, right?

Incorrect:

Dee (http://tennessee.scout.com/a.z?s=7&p=8&c=1&nid=6684964)

Jalen (http://northcarolina.scout.com/a.z?s=78&p=8&c=1&nid=4977541)

Ya know, since you're asking people to try and be factually correct and all...

[Fireball]

Lady,

When I say consistent improvement, I'm really looking at a season-by-season improvement.

2 years ago, didn't make the NIT
last year, make the tournament as last 4 in.
As of now, we project to make it as a 9 or 10 seed. I expect that we're going to improve upon that this year, but if we get there with that seed, we're still on the upward path,

[XU 87]

Now, I am not a fan of recruiting rankings, but since that's what the original argument was based on that's what I'll use in my rebuttal:

In 2010, 2011 and 2012 our classes were ranked 22, 21, and 32 respectively.

Our '13, '14 and '15 classes have been ranked 51, 20, and 87 respectively.

Not only did being in the A10 not hurt our recruiting. It seems you could make the argument we were recruiting better when we were the big dog in the A10 as opposed to now.


The 2013 class was coming off the heels of The Fight and Dez Wells getting expelled. The Wells' expulsion made recruiting very difficult that year.

Because of the size of the 2014 class, we have one recruit for 2015, which is why that class is ranked so low.

[casualfan]

The 2013 class was coming off the heels of The Fight and Dez Wells getting expelled. The Wells' expulsion made recruiting very difficult that year.

Because of the size of the 2014 class, we have one recruit for 2015, which is why that class is ranked so low.

That plays both ways though. If a small class in 2015 means a lower ranking surely the size of our class last year helped our ranking, right?

It is hilarious and at the same time very sad watching people scramble to come up with excuses for why the team is not playing particularly well.

You know who isn't having any issues right now? Butler. And they even changed leagues twice since 2010! Boy, isn't that amazing. They should get a medal or something. Sheesh they've even had three coaches since then too.

[D-West & PO-Z]

That plays both ways though. If a small class in 2015 means a lower ranking surely the size of our class last year helped our ranking, right?

It is hilarious and at the same time very sad watching people scramble to come up with excuses for why the team is not playing particularly well.

You know who isn't having any issues right now? Butler. And they even changed leagues twice since 2010! Boy, isn't that amazing. They should get a medal or something. Sheesh they've even had three coaches since then too.

Really? They have missed the NCAA tournament in 2 of the last 3 years and had a losing record last year, and really arent in any better position than us this year so far. How are they having no issues? You dont think we will beat them when they come to Cintas?

[casualfan]

Really? They have missed the NCAA tournament in 2 of the last 3 years and had a losing record last year, and really arent in any better position than us this year so far. How are they having no issues? You dont think we will beat them when they come to Cintas?

They're projected to be safely in the tournament while we are planted firmly on the bubble.

The funny thing about you mentioning them missing the tourney 2 of the last 3 years it that it actually bolsters my argument.

If Butler can turn that around that quickly to where they are today there is no reason we should continue to use the past as an excuse for our current struggles.

[Backyard Champ]

I can't imagine what the board would be like if we had the same results as Butler the past few seasons. Nice try though.

[D-West & PO-Z]

They're projected to be safely in the tournament while we are planted firmly on the bubble.

The funny thing about you mentioning them missing the tourney 2 of the last 3 years it that it actually bolsters my argument.

If Butler can turn that around that quickly to where they are today there is no reason we should continue to use the past as an excuse for our current struggles.

Projecting Butler as firmly in right now is pretty funny.

After their next 2 games they will likely be 12-7 and 2-4 in the Big East. Lets talk then.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I can't imagine what the board would be like if we had the same results as Butler the past few seasons. Nice try though.

Exactly, lol.

[Muskied]

Not sure why I'm compelled to respond to this thread...maybe because at it's core, it's the most emotional topic for us to consider.

I think debating recruiting rankings is a colossal waste of time. Yes, we've had bumps in the road....tons of teams do. Butler just dropped 80 on us, and they have been in worse shape than we have been lately. So I throw that argument out.
You can question if Mack is recruiting the right TYPE of player though. I'm not sure we will get MUCH higher rated talent than we are getting right now, and if that's not good enough to be better than 20-9, 19-10 and a 8-11 seed in the tourney, it’s safe to say we will continue to be disappointed. For example, I'm a HUGE supporter of Dee Davis, but he's been the PG for 3 years. His numbers have steadily improved, but the team really hasn't. I can't say if anyone would have done it better, but apparently Randolph and Austin can’t yet...I am interested to see what the team is like with a different floor general next year, particularly one with more size. Also, we haven't been really athletic in the front court. Yes, Reynolds and Taylor may be exception....but when you consider Stainbrook, Stenger, Philmore, Robinson, Farr, Bluiett, Martin- I believe we have to get more athletic in the front court, and I think the staff is going that way with London and Gates.

As far as coaching goes...Mack certainly has some improvements to make. They are in a rut of not performing well in bigger games or on the road. For whatever reason "toughness" seems to be a recurring theme. We've had the cramping examples, and he's been quoted as saying we play "too cool", and not being ready to play. Is that coaching? Or is that the Players? Is it Mack? Or do we have the right assistants? I think all of that is reasonable to consider. Hopefully, time will tell. The great news is we are in a great position and have had limited disruption of late. Ohio State football flipped a switch this year...maybe we will too (save your comparisons to OSU football, it was just an example).

[casualfan]

Projecting Butler as firmly in right now is pretty funny.

After their next 2 games they will likely be 12-7 and 2-4 in the Big East. Lets talk then.

Find me a bracket that has them anywhere near the bubble.

You're right that they might lose their next two (although the system I use has them as a coin flip at Georgetown). Then they play 4 of 5 at home and the one on the road is at Marquette.

[danaandvictory]

I can't imagine what the board would be like if we had the same results as Butler the past few seasons. Nice try though.

I'd put up with a ton on the back of two Final Fours.

[casualfan]

I can't imagine what the board would be like if we had the same results as Butler the past few seasons. Nice try though.

It's called reading: top to bottom, left to right.

We're talking about this year. Try to keep up.

[XU 87]

That plays both ways though. If a small class in 2015 means a lower ranking surely the size of our class last year helped our ranking, right?

It is hilarious and at the same time very sad watching people scramble to come up with excuses for why the team is not playing particularly well.



There is nothing hilarious about what I wrote. There is nothing sad about what I wrote. And my post did not make any excuses for why the team has not played well on the road (the team has played very well at home, but I digress)

I was just pointing out the facts to you about why 2 of the last three recruiting classes were not highly rated. It's your choice if you want to simply refuse to accept these facts.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Find me a bracket that has them anywhere near the bubble.

You're right that they might lose their next two (although the system I use has them as a coin flip at Georgetown). Then they play 4 of 5 at home and the one on the road is at Marquette.

My wording was confusing. I understand that currently they are firmly in, as some sites have us as well, but what I meant is it is so fluid its pointless to look at who is firmly in at this moment for either team/most teams. Butler probably loses the next two games they play putting them at 12-7, 2-4 in the Big East and then they wont be firmly in.

[GoMuskies]

Because of the size of the 2014 class, we have one recruit for 2015, which is why that class is ranked so low.

True, but we do have an open spot in the '15 class, so it doesn't need to be quite so small. I'm willing to bet that a third spot will open up, too. One "unscheduled" spot always does.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Find me a bracket that has them anywhere near the bubble.

You're right that they might lose their next two (although the system I use has them as a coin flip at Georgetown). Then they play 4 of 5 at home and the one on the road is at Marquette.

Butler has also already lost one home game in the Big East to one of the teams bunched in the middle with most of the league (ie not Villanova). I'm not sure their difference in play at home is as drastic as XU's where you can just chalk up their home games to them as auto wins.

Basically I just disagree with your assessment XU should be looking to Butler as a team to emulate that has no problems right now and if they can do it, why cant we? I dont think Butler is much better off than us so far this season.

[GoMuskies]

Butler has the big non-conference wins over UNC and Georgetown (strange but true) to fall back on. We, of course, have no such luxury. That's the only real difference given that we're pretty likely to return the favor from this weekend when they visit Cintas.

[XU 87]

True, but we do have an open spot in the '15 class, so it doesn't need to be quite so small. I'm willing to bet that a third spot will open up, too. One "unscheduled" spot always does.

There will be at least one transfer this year. There usually is.

[casualfan]

Butler has also already lost one home game in the Big East to one of the teams bunched in the middle with most of the league (ie not Villanova). I'm not sure their difference in play at home is as drastic as XU's where you can just chalk up their home games to them as auto wins.

Basically I just disagree with your assessment XU should be looking to Butler as a team to emulate that has no problems right now and if they can do it, why cant we? I dont think Butler is much better off than us so far this season.

Butler has also won a BE road game which is something you can't count on from X, so again that plays both ways.

I'm not sure where you think I said we should be emulating Butler. My only point was that it's ridiculous to think that our move to the BE is something weighing us down this season as is the point of MORs original post. My counter to that was that Butler has experienced more movement and yet is having a very nice season that projects them to be a sure tourney team.

[nasdadjr]

About to be 5-19 in games away from cintas over last two years. Nuff said

[XU 87]

About to be 5-19 in games away from cintas over last two years. Nuff said

Good thing we're winning our home games.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Butler has also won a BE road game which is something you can't count on from X, so again that plays both ways.

I'm not sure where you think I said we should be emulating Butler. My only point was that it's ridiculous to think that our move to the BE is something weighing us down this season as is the point of MORs original post. My counter to that was that Butler has experienced more movement and yet is having a very nice season that projects them to be a sure tourney team.

That is a fair point.

You said Butler wasnt having any problems with the transition to the Big East, I would disagree. I would disagree even further to your assertion that their transition has been better than ours. Their first year they had a losing record and missed the post season completely. XU went to the NCAA tournament. This year, at this point in time, both look to be in the tournament, Butler may be projected to be a higher seed at this moment but otherwise I dont think they are having a markedly better season than XU right now. Things also might look a lot different for Butler after their next two games.

I was just surprised you wanted to point to Butler as a program having no issues transitioning to the Big East.

[bleedXblue]

You have the excuse makers and then you have the those that accept the current situation for what it is. We didn't jump into a league with programs that have had significantly more success than we have had over the last 10 years. You can look back at our success over the old Big 6 leagues during the same period and we more than held our own. This team (coach included) has to step it up if it wants to continue to be held in high regard. I see a complete change of attitude and style of play needed in order to be able to accomplish this. The last 2 1/2 years have been underwhelming. Stop making excuses and get busy.

[casualfan]

That is a fair point.

You said Butler wasnt having any problems with the transition to the Big East, I would disagree. I would disagree even further to your assertion that their transition has been better than ours. Their first year they had a losing record and missed the post season completely. XU went to the NCAA tournament. This year, at this point in time, both look to be in the tournament, Butler may be projected to be a higher seed at this moment but otherwise I dont think they are having a markedly better season than XU right now. Things also might look a lot different for Butler after their next two games.

I was just surprised you wanted to point to Butler as a program having no issues transitioning to the Big East.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS YEAR. Find me a post where I said Butler hasn't had any issues transitioning to the Big East.

Actually, don't. I'll save you the time because I never said that. Here is what I did say:



You know who isn't having any issues right now? Butler. And they even changed leagues twice since 2010! Boy, isn't that amazing. They should get a medal or something. Sheesh they've even had three coaches since then too.

The point is that if Butler, given their multiple transitions and years missing the tourney, can be in a position to be firmly in the field it is ridiculous to point to our transition as a reason why we are not.

As to Butler's next two games you keep mentioning that as if they lose both games they will suddenly slip to the play-in game. They won't. In fact, I'd be willing to bet if they lose both those games they'll only drop a seed line or two and will still be projected to make it in safely.

Not only that, their game against Georgetown is a coin flip and they are only a slight underdog in the Seton Hall game. I know at this point as a Xavier fan you are probably conditioned to expect teams to auto-lose on the road to decent teams, but not everyone does that. I know that sound weird, but it is true. Teams can win road games, even against good teams. Butler already has a road win over a team that is very comparable to Seton Hall and is better than Georgetown.

[muskiefan82]

This team lacks "THAT" guy. Guys like Dante, Stanley, Posey. Jalen has emotion, but he isn't a consistent floor leader.

This team needs a ball handler with steel balls. Dee is not that guy. He doesn't seem to command the team. Granted, he's the best option and a decent player, but he is not a floor general. Here's hoping one of the new guys can become that guy.

There is a lack of in your face leadership that this team seems to need when not at home.

Just my thoughts. They might be completely off base, but I just don't see it from this team yet. Trevon might be that guy at some point. We'll see.

[XU 87]

Not only that, their game against Georgetown is a coin flip and they are only a slight underdog in the Seton Hall game. I know at this point as a Xavier fan you are probably conditioned to expect teams to auto-lose on the road to decent teams, but not everyone does that. Butler already has a road win over a team that is very comparable to Seton Hall and is better than Georgetown.

Please stop acting like Butler is some sort of gold standard because they won one league road game.

We are well aware that this team struggles on the road. We are also well aware that this team needs to get mentally tougher on the road.

[casualfan]

Please stop acting like Butler is some sort of gold standard because they won one league road game.

We are well aware that this team struggles on the road. We are also well aware that this team needs to get mentally tougher on the road.

This site is equipped with an ignore button.

If you don't like my posts you're more than welcome to use it.

[Xtemporaneous]

God I hope we win a game on the road soon.

[XU 87]

This site is equipped with an ignore button.

If you don't like my posts you're more than welcome to use it.

No, someone needs to monitor you and correct you when you're wrong and remind you when you are repeating the same criticisms, over and over again. I have volunteered for that unenviable task.

[D-West & PO-Z]

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS YEAR. Find me a post where I said Butler hasn't had any issues transitioning to the Big East.

Actually, don't. I'll save you the time because I never said that. Here is what I did say:



The point is that if Butler, given their multiple transitions and years missing the tourney, can be in a position to be firmly in the field it is ridiculous to point to our transition as a reason why we are not.

As to Butler's next two games you keep mentioning that as if they lose both games they will suddenly slip to the play-in game. They won't. In fact, I'd be willing to bet if they lose both those games they'll only drop a seed line or two and will still be projected to make it in safely.

Not only that, their game against Georgetown is a coin flip and they are only a slight underdog in the Seton Hall game. I know at this point as a Xavier fan you are probably conditioned to expect teams to auto-lose on the road to decent teams, but not everyone does that. I know that sound weird, but it is true. Teams can win road games, even against good teams. Butler already has a road win over a team that is very comparable to Seton Hall and is better than Georgetown.

The topic is how XU is fairing transitioning to the Big East and you pointed to Butler. Both schools have been in the Big East for two years yet for some reason (because it dampens your argument) you want to ignore Butler's first year in the Big East where they has a losing record and we went to the tournament, and you are harping on this year as if Butler is having some amazing year while XU is struggling. XU and Butler are not that far off from each other THIS YEAR.

XU:
RPI: 36
Top 50 wins: 3
Top 100 wins: 4
Sub 100 losses: 1

Butler:
RPI: 23
Top 50 wins: 4 (includes XU, I know we'll return the favor)
Top 100 wins: 4
Sub 100 losses: 0

Please tell me again how much better Butler is doing this season?

[casualfan]

No, someone needs to monitor you and correct you when you're wrong and remind you when you are repeating the same criticisms, over and over again. I have volunteered for that unenviable task.

What a sad, sorry existence you must lead...

[D-West & PO-Z]

God I hope we win a game on the road soon.

Ha, same.

[casualfan]

The topic is how XU is fairing transitioning to the Big East and you pointed to Butler. Both schools have been in the Big East for two years yet for some reason (because it dampens your argument) you want to ignore Butler's first year in the Big East where they has a losing record and we went to the tournament, and you are harping on this year as if Butler is having some amazing year while XU is struggling. XU and Butler are not that far off from each other THIS YEAR.

XU: Butler:
RPI: 36 RPI: 23
Top 50 wins: 3 Top 50 wins: 4 (includes XU, I know we'll return the favor)
Top 100 wins: 4 Top 100 wins: 4
Sub 100 losses: 1 Sub 100 losses: 0

Please tell me again how much better Butler is doing this season?

They have a neutral court win over a top 25 team, a road win over a team projected to make the tournament, and no bad losses. There's three ways.

[XU 87]

What a sad, sorry existence you must lead...

Oh dear. When you have to resort to this stuff, besides monitoring you, I will pray for you as well.

[D-West & PO-Z]

They have a neutral court win over a top 25 team, a road win over a team projected to make the tournament, and no bad losses. There's three ways.

None of which is significantly improving their resume or numbers over ours.

Also, again, college basketball is very fluid, lets revisit the comparison later in the year. The argument is going no where.

[vee4xu]

Just checked KenPom and X is 26. Only Villanova at 5 is a higher ranked Big East team. There are 7 BE teams in the Top 50. Butler is 29. There are three A-10 teams in top 50, highest is VCU 15. Just fresh info.

[IM4X]

There have been a lot of experts commenting, criticizing and otherwise pontificating about this team's recent performances and about the Coaching of one Chris Mack. There has also been quite a bit of commentary comparing Coach Mack to his two predecessors with statements like "we never saw stuff like the Butler game under (Beaknose)or (Desert Raccoon)."

it seems like people on here have quite the short memories or they just refuse to acknowledge differences in overall circumstances between the situations of Beak/Raccoon and CMack. I'm not even going to reference the departure of very good players, not only because of ability, but because of stupidity, that set the program back or the ludicrous NCAA ruling that kept Myles Davis and Jalen Reynolds off the court in 2012-2013. No, it's about the total overall change in circumstance of a significant league upgrade that the previous two Deities never had to deal with.

In CMack's first 3 years, everyone can admit that his results were comparable to his predecessors- 3 NCAA's with 2 Sweet 16's and 2 A10 Championships. With all 3 of our most recent coaches, Xavier had the advantage of recruiting in the A10 because of Cintas Center and won in the A10 with better talent, but even with that, XU could only get, at best 5th or 6th ranked league level talent, not 2nd or 3rd. But the one difference that Mack has had to deal with is the change of leagues upward in last and this year that the other two did not. Consider:

Stat #1: Almost one half of the scholarship players on this present roster (6) committed & signed with Xavier before Xavier was any where near being in a conversation about joining the Big East- that is in 2010, 2011 or 2012. So what, you may say? Well this what. Mack, just as with Beaknose and Raccoon, was recruiting in a pool of players that were available to the 7th - 8th ranked league rather than a pool of players that would be at a level of the 2nd or 3rd ranked league. However now, Xavier is playing schools that have ALWAYS been recruiting at a 2nd/3rd league level. So our older players were recruited in essence to be A10 competitive, not Big East competitive. But, what about Butler you say? Well, they had Brad Stevens leveraging their two final 4's when recruiting, a one off advantage that Mack does not have. Even DePaul with Purnell still had the Big East aura to help them.

Stat #2: Of the 7 players that Xavier has on it's roster that committed/signed since the announcement of Xavier's Big East membership, only Remy Abel has more than 16 games experience. The others are kids, talented kids, but kids who last year were in high school and didn't have to play defense like they do up here. Unlike the previous Xavier classes, they are not getting their feet wet in the 7th ranked league, but the 2nd ranked one. Why should we be surprised if they struggle at times- especially on defense?

Of course critics will point out losses this year to people like Auburn, Long Beach, and DePaul as examples why Mack stinks. Well, my memory is not short, and I remember horrible efforts against average or worse teams under both Toucan (Iowa State, Ball State, Richmond, Dookcane, St. Bonaventure) and Raccoon (Fordham, a bad Tennessee team, a bad Cincinnati team(Cronin's first year), Miami (2 losses), Dookcane & LaSalle). Stinkers happen, and I will criticize coaching moves when they deserve criticism, but let us remember that half this squad was recruited to compete in the A 10 and half are freshman. The ONLY player on this roster that does not fall in either category is Abel.

Am I happy with the effort at Butler last Saturday? No more than I was with the effort at Fordham under Raccoon or at Ball State under Toucan, but I'm willing to let the season play before really being concerned.

Chris Mack is going nowhere soon, unless he, himself generates the move. At least we should give him the benefit of more time in this new league before we damn him to the fiery furnace.


I don't get this argument about recruiting. How often did Butler get better recruits than X? Did they have top tier recruits when they got to two consecutive NCAA championship games. X had higher rated recruits. So we probably should have had the on edge to get to those championship games over Butler

And the idea that they may have been helped in recruiting after their Final 4 appearances seems like a strange point. X was still getting better rated recruits than Butler at that time. So where is the edge again for Stevens over Mack there. Stevens (and I think we can all agree he is the real deal) always did more with less perceived talent because instead of getting caught up with the hype, he spent time finding players who would give him everything he asked of them and he knew exactly what to ask of them.

Look how highly rated some of the stars of the two Championship games for Butler.

http://espn.go.com/colleges/basketball/recruiting/school/_/id/2086/class/2008

https://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/basketball/recruiting/commitments/2008/xavier-635

Gordon Hayward (from the 2007 class) was the highest ranked and ESPN had him only ranked the 47th best PF (Rivals has him higher)

Great coaches find players they know they can work with and help make better and help make the team play better as the season moves along and every year they are playing under him. This is something Matta did well at X. this is something Miller did well at X. this is something Gillen did well at X. This is something Stevens did well at Butler. It is something Mack needs to prove he can do. Not just blame the players he recruited when things go wrong.

We have enough good players now to win the big east. Mack said as much right before the season. So there are no excuses. This team just needs to be shown the way.

[xufan2434]

This team lacks "THAT" guy. Guys like Dante, Stanley, Posey. Jalen has emotion, but he isn't a consistent floor leader.

This team needs a ball handler with steel balls. Dee is not that guy. He doesn't seem to command the team. Granted, he's the best option and a decent player, but he is not a floor general. Here's hoping one of the new guys can become that guy.

There is a lack of in your face leadership that this team seems to need when not at home.

Just my thoughts. They might be completely off base, but I just don't see it from this team yet. Trevon might be that guy at some point. We'll see.

This is the only thing I've read so far worth praising/responding to... Of all the problems everyone has presented about recruiting, defense, whatever stars a player gets in high school.. I think this is the biggest thing. X used to have guys that didn't back down and weren't afraid on the road (granted they were A-10 games). And honestly, I think Mack has been scared to go after guys with that same mentality ever since the brawl and Dez. I am not saying these guys can't get it done but as Mark Lyons said "we're cut from a different cloth"

Those guys were also many times infuriating.. which everyone seems to forget, but I do agree X lacks "that guy". Great X teams in the past have had great guards with a chip on their shoulder. While we got a bunch of new guards recently, I don't see that same look in their eye as Chalmers, Lavender, Burrell, Tu, etc IMO. I don't know if X will get back to that or if Mack even wants those kind of players again.

[LA Muskie]

This team lacks "THAT" guy. Guys like Dante, Stanley, Posey. Jalen has emotion, but he isn't a consistent floor leader.

This team needs a ball handler with steel balls. Dee is not that guy. He doesn't seem to command the team. Granted, he's the best option and a decent player, but he is not a floor general. Here's hoping one of the new guys can become that guy.

There is a lack of in your face leadership that this team seems to need when not at home.

Just my thoughts. They might be completely off base, but I just don't see it from this team yet. Trevon might be that guy at some point. We'll see.

Agreed. Mack said on his radio show yesterday he thought Myles was developing into that guy. Which is great. Except it's hard to be that guy from the bench.

[GoMuskies]

Just checked KenPom and X is 26. Only Villanova at 5 is a higher ranked Big East team. There are 7 BE teams in the Top 50. Butler is 29. There are three A-10 teams in top 50, highest is VCU 15. Just fresh info.

Does KenPom do home/road splits? If so, to be #26 overall Xavier HAS to be a top 5 team at home.

[XU 87]

Just checked KenPom and X is 26. Only Villanova at 5 is a higher ranked Big East team. There are 7 BE teams in the Top 50. Butler is 29. There are three A-10 teams in top 50, highest is VCU 15. Just fresh info.

We all agree that X has to get tougher on the road. I just think some people are forgetting that X has some really good home wins.

[LA Muskie]

We all agree that X has to get tougher on the road. I just think some people are forgetting that X has some really good home wins.

I'm not forgetting them. I just don't think the Committee gives all that much credit to them. At least not relative to road/neutral wins.

[vee4xu]

Does KenPom do home/road splits? If so, to be #26 overall Xavier HAS to be a top 5 team at home.

Not sure, Go. I'm too cheap to ante up The $19.95 per year to find out. Maybe someone who subscribes can help us both.

[vee4xu]

Here's what I can see. X is ranked 8th overall in Adjusted Offensive Efficiency,'points scored per 100 possessions, adjusted for opponent. X is ranked 121 in adjusted defensive efficiency, points allowed per 100 possessions, adjusted for opponent. The only other triple digit rating above X is Notre Dame at 153. In fact the only Other top 40 team with a triple digit defensive rating is Davidson at 205. However Notre Dame, and Davidson are ranked 1 and 5 respectively in adjusted offense.

[XU 87]

The KenPom ratings, particularly shooting percentages, really show just about how bad X's defense is.

I don't see where it is divided up road v. home.

[xudash]

Not sure why I'm compelled to respond to this thread...maybe because at it's core, it's the most emotional topic for us to consider.

I think debating recruiting rankings is a colossal waste of time. Yes, we've had bumps in the road....tons of teams do. Butler just dropped 80 on us, and they have been in worse shape than we have been lately. So I throw that argument out.
You can question if Mack is recruiting the right TYPE of player though. I'm not sure we will get MUCH higher rated talent than we are getting right now, and if that's not good enough to be better than 20-9, 19-10 and a 8-11 seed in the tourney, it’s safe to say we will continue to be disappointed. For example, I'm a HUGE supporter of Dee Davis, but he's been the PG for 3 years. His numbers have steadily improved, but the team really hasn't. I can't say if anyone would have done it better, but apparently Randolph and Austin can’t yet...I am interested to see what the team is like with a different floor general next year, particularly one with more size. Also, we haven't been really athletic in the front court. Yes, Reynolds and Taylor may be exception....but when you consider Stainbrook, Stenger, Philmore, Robinson, Farr, Bluiett, Martin- I believe we have to get more athletic in the front court, and I think the staff is going that way with London and Gates.

As far as coaching goes...Mack certainly has some improvements to make. They are in a rut of not performing well in bigger games or on the road. For whatever reason "toughness" seems to be a recurring theme. We've had the cramping examples, and he's been quoted as saying we play "too cool", and not being ready to play. Is that coaching? Or is that the Players? Is it Mack? Or do we have the right assistants? I think all of that is reasonable to consider. Hopefully, time will tell. The great news is we are in a great position and have had limited disruption of late. Ohio State football flipped a switch this year...maybe we will too (save your comparisons to OSU football, it was just an example).

Excellent post.

Take Ohio State football out of it and consider some of what you may have heard during last night's telecast from Urban and others: - "family" "play for each other" "toughness" - there is a real discussion that should be taking place about TEAM CHEMISTRY, ATTITUDE AND DISPOSITION. I think these guys have chemistry; they really seem to like each other. I just don't see them getting TACTFULLY MEAN AND ANGRY when needed.

And, whether you like him or not, Doc's comments, which amplify the point I'm making:

THE MUSKETEERS AREN'T ROAD WARRIORS and they have to go to Villanova tomorrow night. Winning on the road requires a toughness and an attitude. Xavier has had tough guys in the past, players like Tu Holloway and CJ Anderson. Not the finest of gentlemen, perhaps, but certainly players you want with you in the foxhole.

At the moment, Xavier has loads of talent, but not yet the edge needed to win at a place like Villanova. Or DePaul, for that matter. The good news is, after a hellacious January (at Providence, G-town and Seton Hall still to come) things ease up in February.

The Musketeers in February are on the road for just three games, and one of those is at UC. The others are at Marquette and St. John's. Meaning, they'll have to leave home for all of about 72 hours the whole month.

If they can hang on the rest of this month, not get discouraged or lose some confidence, the young Musketeers have a chance to enter March with a nice head of steam.

[casualfan]

Not sure why I'm compelled to respond to this thread...maybe because at it's core, it's the most emotional topic for us to consider.

I think debating recruiting rankings is a colossal waste of time. Yes, we've had bumps in the road....tons of teams do. Butler just dropped 80 on us, and they have been in worse shape than we have been lately. So I throw that argument out.
You can question if Mack is recruiting the right TYPE of player though. I'm not sure we will get MUCH higher rated talent than we are getting right now, and if that's not good enough to be better than 20-9, 19-10 and a 8-11 seed in the tourney, it’s safe to say we will continue to be disappointed. For example, I'm a HUGE supporter of Dee Davis, but he's been the PG for 3 years. His numbers have steadily improved, but the team really hasn't. I can't say if anyone would have done it better, but apparently Randolph and Austin can’t yet...I am interested to see what the team is like with a different floor general next year, particularly one with more size. Also, we haven't been really athletic in the front court. Yes, Reynolds and Taylor may be exception....but when you consider Stainbrook, Stenger, Philmore, Robinson, Farr, Bluiett, Martin- I believe we have to get more athletic in the front court, and I think the staff is going that way with London and Gates.

As far as coaching goes...Mack certainly has some improvements to make. They are in a rut of not performing well in bigger games or on the road. For whatever reason "toughness" seems to be a recurring theme. We've had the cramping examples, and he's been quoted as saying we play "too cool", and not being ready to play. Is that coaching? Or is that the Players? Is it Mack? Or do we have the right assistants? I think all of that is reasonable to consider. Hopefully, time will tell. The great news is we are in a great position and have had limited disruption of late. Ohio State football flipped a switch this year...maybe we will too (save your comparisons to OSU football, it was just an example).

I agree with most everything you wrote.

One small point I would make is that Jeff Robinson was a pretty good athlete. He wasn't a very good basketball player, but he could run pretty fast and jump pretty high for a guy that size.

The other is that I don't believe Kaiser Gates will be an athletic improvement over what we have on the roster. He's not particularly fast and doesn't get up particularly high. Very skilled though.

[Masterofreality]

Incorrect:

Dee (http://tennessee.scout.com/a.z?s=7&p=8&c=1&nid=6684964)

Jalen (http://northcarolina.scout.com/a.z?s=78&p=8&c=1&nid=4977541)

Ya know, since you're asking people to try and be factually correct and all...

Dee- 3.3 stars average. That would be 3 http://www.verbalcommits.com/players/dee-davis

Jalen- 3 stars. That would be 3. http://www.verbalcommits.com/players/jalen-reynolds--2

Since I'm factually correct and all.

[GoMuskies]

Damn, according to Scout Xavier accumulated some crazy talent back when we were still expecting to play in the lowly A-10. Among players who were clearly not cut out for Big East play, we had Kenny Frease (4 star #49 in his class), Justin Martin (4 star #87 in his class), Jay Canty (4 star #83 in his class), Jordan Latham (4 star #94 in his class), Dez Wells (4 star #45 in his class), Dee Davis (4 star #93 in his class), Semaj Christon (5 star #24 in his class), and Jalen Reynolds (4 star #90 in his class).

[casualfan]

Dee- 3.3 stars average. That would be 3 http://www.verbalcommits.com/players/dee-davis

Jalen- 3 stars. That would be 3. http://www.verbalcommits.com/players/jalen-reynolds--2

Since I'm factually correct and all.

You're using the wrong page for Jalen man:

http://www.verbalcommits.com/players/jalen-reynolds

He was a 4 star at every outlet.

That website you are using is shit by the way.

[Masterofreality]

When Dee Davis and Jalen Reynolds were being recruited and committed to Xavier, they were 3 star recruits. That is the level of players in the pool we could realistically draw from- which was my original premise. The pages I posted prove it.

Based on what some people post on this and other sites after some games, you'd think they're one star now.

[GoMuskies]

Except that Semaj was a 5 star, and Martin, Canty and Latham were all 4 stars. As a matter of fact, last year's class didn't look that much different than previous classes other than we had more players in the class. Trevon was about as highly regarded as Dez, and JP and Edmond were in the same range as the Justin Martin/Dee Davis type recruits. None of the others (or Gates for that matter) are more highly regarded than a number of other guys we recruited back in A-10 days.

[XU 87]

In the for what it's worth column, I don't think we ever would have gotten Bluiett if we were still in the A-10. We would have gotten DSR if we were in the Big East at the time.

I think being in the Big East opens recruiting doors that we didn't have access to prior. Chris Mack has said as much.

[xsteve1]

In the for what it's worth column, I don't think we ever would have gotten Bluiett if we were still in the A-10. We would have gotten DSR if we were in the Big East at the time.

I think being in the Big East opens recruiting doors that we didn't have access to prior. Chris Mack has said as much.

Very true but while in the A10 X was out recruiting a lot of BE teams UC included.

[GoMuskies]

I think being in the Big East opens recruiting doors that we didn't have access to prior. Chris Mack has said as much.

Of course it does. That's one of the key reasons it's great to be here. But when we were in the A-10 Xavier was recruiting at a PLENTY high level to compete at the very top of the Big East. We were recruiting about as well as we're recruiting right now, in fact. Probably better.

[XU 87]

Very true but while in the A10 X was out recruiting a lot of BE teams UC included.

That is true, although Cronin upped UC's recruiting after a couple of years.

[LA Muskie]

Of course it does. That's one of the key reasons it's great to be here. But when we were in the A-10 Xavier was recruiting at a PLENTY high level to compete at the very top of the Big East. We were recruiting about as well as we're recruiting right now, in fact. Probably better.

I think this is right, so long as you insert the word "current" before "Big East" in the 2nd sentence. We mostly recruited the same "class" of player in our 2014 class; we just got more of them than is typical. Our 2015 class is disappointing to me. Even if we don't need a big class, our lone recruit so far is about average at best -- even for our A-10 recruiting days. And while we may have an extra scholarship or two , according to Mack we're not really in the market because the 2015 class is so thin. Which means, at most, we won't see the alleged "Big East bump" in recruiting until 2016 at the earliest.

One final point: DSR and Semaj may not necessarily have played the same position, and we may have recruited them simultaneously, but there is no way BOTH were going to commit to us. This has been made very clear by the staff and those with close ties to it.

[GoMuskies]

I think this is right, so long as you insert the word "current" before "Big East" in the 2nd sentence.

Absolutely. I don't really remember any other Big East to be honest with you. :)

[waggy]

Why worry about the 2015 class? The way things go now there are frequently late events which can change things quickly. Bluiett as a recent example.

[GoMuskies]

Good point waggy. If there is a good transfer available (graduate or otherwise), it would be nice to have a spot to accommodate him.

[XU 87]

Of course it does. That's one of the key reasons it's great to be here. But when we were in the A-10 Xavier was recruiting at a PLENTY high level to compete at the very top of the Big East. We were recruiting about as well as we're recruiting right now, in fact. Probably better.

I don't disagree with you. You have valid points. X was recruiting at a high level while in the A-10. However, I suspect there are a few guys on this current team that the staff would not have recruited if we were in the Big East at that time.

[LA Muskie]

Why worry about the 2015 class? The way things go now there are frequently late events which can change things quickly. Bluiett as a recent example.
Mack mentioned that on his radio show. This year we actually got two of them (Bluiett and Austin Jr.). But while it may happen with some regularity, it also usually has to happen to someone you were recruiting before their commitment (at least for a school like us). Two in one year was somewhat like lightning in a bottle. More likely, it happens every two to three years.

Mack didn't seem particularly enthused with the 2015 class. Since the UK's, Duke's, North Carolina's, and Florida's of the world are always going to get theirs, it means there's a lot less available for the rest of the schools. But since we have essentially converted 2 guys from 2014 to 2015, I don't get the sense there's a lot of concern. I think they're more likely to look at the graduate, transfer and JuCo markets to pick up a more seasoned big man and help balance out the classes.

[Emp]

Why worry about the 2015 class? The way things go now there are frequently late events which can change things quickly. Bluiett as a recent example.

Wha? Mack was on Blueitt way before the cfompetition, an withstood izzo's run at stealing him away.

Recruiting status./ ranking is a poor apologia for Macks failure to develop a team with better road and tourney credentials. Lies, damnable lies, etc.

Mack and Miller may have been playing in the A10, but The Run team managed to take down very good teams fromSt. Joe and dayton on Daytons floor, then win three tourney games and take Duke to the brink with less talent than this team. Ditto Miller. We just are not winning many games we aren't supposed to win.

We are getting out asses blocked at the glass at what seems like a record rate. Ditto giving up offensive rebounds. Most of the BE is playing above the rim, we're playing below it. I love the smarts on this team, the defense, but we're just not a physically imposing presence, which has nothing to do with toughness or desire.

Another problem that has nothing to do with desire is finding consistent 3 point shooting. Teams are laying off, Dee especially, and daring us to shoot.3s We make 3s, especially in the second half, we win 4 more games.

This team can still gel and do some damage. When we start hitting 3s Mack will look like a genius.

[MuskiePimp23]

I am not sure who was talking about Xavier getting 2 * recruits, but Xavier hasn't had a 2* recruit if you go back and look at the major recruiting sites since Matta...We have actually had 2 5* recruits if you count Drew Lavender (Rivals 5*) and Semaj Christon (Scout 5 *). Semaj was 4* on both Rivals and ESPN. We have been recruiting at essentially the same level in terms of players and rankings really since Miller was our coach. Miller elevated our recruiting if you want to look at rankings and we could compete with any power conference team ever since Matta has been coach so this step up in conference excuse is weak. Also, we have the best on campus facility of any team in our conference and one of if not the best in the country. Period.

[smileyy]

There's something to be said about a coach who's coaching like he wants to get hired at a place like Arizona or Ohio State. There's some motivation there.

[vee4xu]

There's something to be said about a coach who's coaching like he wants to get hired at a place like Arizona or Ohio State. There's some motivation there.

Yeah for sure. Sort of like Archie's doing at ud this year?

[vee4xu]

I don't know the first thing about coaching basketball. But for 35 years I've managed people and for many of those years higher level people. So the following is about Coach Mack the manager, not the coach. For the past three years it seems players start the season well then trail off As the season goes on. Players in the dog house one week and out of it the next. Starting one game and buried on the bench the next. Based on this I feel like Coach Mack has to be delivering either an uncertain or mixed messages Or unclear messages to his team. This is more due to his style than knowledge of the game. If players, like employees don't get a consistent message, then they can't know what's expected of them, causing confusion and frustration. Bottom line: I'm concluding that Coach Mack is likely a very Good basketball mind, but not a very good manager resulting in uncertainty from his players as to what's expected of them. The result: inconsistent performance and results even from high performers.

[paulxu]

Isn't this what everybody has been waiting for? Mack to take responsibility? Mack to demand toughness out of his players?

"
We felt like when we left Hinkle Fieldhouse on Saturday that our effort in the last seven, eight minutes, and our desire to win wasn't where it needed to be. That was my fault as a coach because if I'm continuing to play guys that aren't giving the effort that's needed, the toughness that's needed down the stretch to win a close game like that – that's on me," Mack said.

So he does, and everybody continues to complain about his lineup choices?
Some people are just never happy I guess.

[Masterofreality]

Isn't this what everybody has been waiting for? Mack to take responsibility? Mack to demand toughness out of his players?

"

So he does, and everybody continues to complain about his lineup choices?
Some people are just never happy I guess.

Well, he went overboard on that. No Remy Abel, your best defender and a lineup with Austin, Macura and Bluiett in to start? Uh, no. 11-2 after 3 minutes. Some improvement.

[vee4xu]

Paul, taking responsibility is admirable but the question is how is he communicating his message, what is his message and is his message consistent. The lack of progress from early season blowouts, followed by poor holiday tournament play and declining play in the conference schedule is now a trend. That's reflective of management. The effort we're seeing may be due to players being confused about what their coach expects,thus impacting performance of really talented players.

[paulxu]

MOR, I agree it was a crap lineup to start, and put us in a big hole. But almost to a person, everyone on here has been lambasting Mack for being less than strong on managing the defense, and demanding better from his players...demanding effort, expecting better, and taking responsibility. So he in essence does what everybody here has been harping about...and he's still wrong?


Three freshmen started against a veteran Villanova team, a less-than-ideal scenario, but it sent a message. Xavier's top on-the-ball defender, Remy Abell, played just nine minutes.

"I think when we went A to Z on who we felt like were the hardest workers, the most spirited guys in practice, that's just sort of where he fell to," Mack said. "Again, I think it's incumbent upon on him and everybody that if you want to play, then you have to show up to practice and nothing's given. Remy knows that.

You can't please everybody, especially arm-chair quarterbacks/coaches. That God some of the people weren't here through the tough times. The suicide rate in Cincinnati would be astronomical.

[paulxu]

Vee, do we really know that his players are confused? I don't think we do.
Everybody was bitching Mack didn't take responsibility, so he does in that article...and we move on to something else.
Maybe his players are confused. I don't know.
From his comments it seems rather straightforward. Give effort...get playing time. That's pretty simple.
Abell doesn't give effort...his minutes are reduced.

Personally I think some people are just a little spoiled. Hell, I'm spoiled. But just not as quick to pitch him off the cliff...probably because I'm a old fart.

[vee4xu]

Point is it's not Coach Mack's comments to us that matters those comments are coming from the results of communicating with his team. One point Randolph is the guy, followed by two DNP's. One day Remy's tearing it up, next he doesn't start in the biggest game of the year and plays 9 minutes. One day Austin is forgotten on the bench, next he's starting on against the the No. 4 team in the country. These are 20 year old kidS. They need consistency on from their coach just like they need from their parents. Confidence of young folks is easily compromised and inconsistency is a main culprit to eroding confidence now matter what's the situation.

[XUOWNSUC]

Point is it's not Coach Mack's comments to us that matters those comments are coming from the results of communicating with his team. One point Randolph is the guy, followed by two DNP's. One day Remy's tearing it up, next he doesn't start in the biggest game of the year and plays 9 minutes. One day Austin is forgotten on the bench, next he's starting on the raid a isn't the No. 4 team in the country. These are 20 year old kidS. They need consistency on from their coach just like they need from their parents. Confidence of young folks is easily compromised and inconsistency is a main culprit to eroding confidence now matter what's the situation.

Agreed. I don't know how Randolph isn't a head case by now. I seriously think Mack has screwed him up. Randolph looked pretty damn good his first few starts as a freshman when he had to play the majority of the game because Dee was hurt. Ever since then, he has only gotten a few minutes here and a few minutes there. I think his growth was stunted. I'm rooting for the guy.

[sweet16]

As far as Mack is concerned I suspect that everyone will ultimately end up in the same place.......some folks have just gotten there quicker than others.

[casualfan]

MOR, I agree it was a crap lineup to start, and put us in a big hole. But almost to a person, everyone on here has been lambasting Mack for being less than strong on managing the defense, and demanding better from his players...demanding effort, expecting better, and taking responsibility. So he in essence does what everybody here has been harping about...and he's still wrong?


Ehh, I don't agree with that. Trevon and JP are two of the worst defenders we have and they were still starting so I don't really agree he did what everyone has been harping about.

He also swapped out arguably the best defender we have in Abell for Austin.

[Masterofreality]

MOR, I agree it was a crap lineup to start, and put us in a big hole. But almost to a person, everyone on here has been lambasting Mack for being less than strong on managing the defense, and demanding better from his players...demanding effort, expecting better, and taking responsibility. So he in essence does what everybody here has been harping about...and he's still wrong?

You can't please everybody, especially arm-chair quarterbacks/coaches. That God some of the people weren't here through the tough times. The suicide rate in Cincinnati would be astronomical.

Well, practice aside, which you can't totally doscount, but...

What I know is that Remy Abel shut Kellen Dunham down, kept DSR from going off and is our best defender. Proven...in games.

I heard an interesting statement from CMack on the Monday radio show. Byron asked him what he thought of Remy Abel after he did a good job on Dunham. The Coach said that-and this is not a direct quote- "Well, he was OK. He was great on his man, but he needs to fill gaps better and make our team defense better. If we had 5 Remy Abell's, this wouldn't be a problem."

Wait a minute. I thought that this staff was all into individual accountability? Why is it Remy Abel's fault when JP Macura or Trevon Blueitt can't stay in front of their man? I get that defense is more that one guy and there has to be some kind of team chemistry for that, but how can you pin part of the problem on Abel and then only play him 9 minutes in the next game?

And, obviously some people on here are still all in, and I've been a defender of this and other coaches, but there are serious problems that are cropping up and strange answers are being given to the questions.

It is almost like Mack in his mind had conceded the Villamova game going in and decided that no matter what, he was going to use the game as a statement by playing a lineup to "send a message" to others.

Will Remy start on Saturday? That will be interesting.

[vee4xu]

BTW, the icing atop this confusion cake is the announcement that every week becomes an job audition. Interesting inasmuch as the situation may be the result of Coach's own indecisiveness and blurry message to his team. All that will do is create more uncertainty among young men seeking g guidance and feedback. Like Skip always said, I'm a teacher first.

[Masterofreality]

As far as Mack is concerned I suspect that everyone will ultimately end up in the same place.......some folks have just gotten there quicker than others.

No, nattering nabob of negativism. No we will not.

You have no credibility only showing up after bad games and never having a positive thing to say.

I hope you enjoy your time in deep dark hell, because that is where you seem to live.

[vee4xu]

Yep. Ditto MOR here.

No, nattering nabob of negativism. No we will not.

You have no credibility only showing up after bad games and never having a positive thing to say.

I hope you enjoy your time in deep dark hell, because that is where you seem to live.

[XUGRAD80]

haven't read all 11 pages of this thread......but wondering if anyone noticed that X scored FORTY-EIGHT points on what everyone thinks should be a final 4 team, in the 2nd half? Outscored "nova by 5 in the 2nd half.

seems they made some adjustments at halftime, and you certainly can not say they weren't still playing hard all the way through the game.


hmmm....halftime adjustments, solid effort throughout the game, successful offensively most of the game

face it guys.....this just isn't a very good DEFENSIVE team. In fact, I would say they are a POOR defensive team. Maybe even a BAD defensive team.
But, how much of that is players? how much of that is coaching? and how much of that is scheme? If you are going to blame the coach for where they are deficient, then you need to praise the coach for where they are successful. That is only fair, right?

Perhaps, instead of saying how good a PLAYER did when he scores a bunch of points, or shuts an opposing player down defensively, we should be praising the coach for teaching him how to do so, putting him in a position to do so, and playing him enough to do so. Because everyone seemingly wants to blame the COACH when this doesn't happen, don't they?

Perhaps its time for some of our players to look themselves in the mirror and admit to themselves that THEY have been playing like s**t, and that THEY need to do better. When was the last time that you heard a player say, after a great game, that the coach was the one responsible for them playing so well? Well players, if you are going to take all the credit when you succeed, then you need to take the blame when you don't. I have yet to hear Coach Mack take the credit for a player's success. He always talks about how hard the player has been working to get better. So I have no problem with him also saying that they need to work harder in practice, and that they need to play better in games. It is called holding a player responsible....something it seems some of the young players need to still learn.

[LadyMuskie]

BTW, the icing atop this confusion cake is the announcement that every week becomes an job audition. Interesting inasmuch as the situation may be the result of Coach's own indecisiveness and blurry message to his team. All that will do is create more uncertainty among young men seeking g guidance and feedback. Like Skip always said, I'm a teacher first.

Did he really say that? While I get the idea of effort = playing time, at this level you shouldn't have a starting lineup that isn't (mostly) fixed. Sure you may substitute one player or something occasionally, but to never know from one game to the next who's starting? Good God.

I can't decide what the real crux of the problem is. Is it that Mack has a hard time getting his players to buy into the system he wants to use? If so, why? They had to have been made aware of what kind of plays we run, etc. when recruited.

Is it that Mack is a bad communicator? Does he not explain succinctly to his coaches and players what he wants? Is his message unintentionally muddled?

Is Mack so stubborn that even if a system isn't working, he won't abandon it in favor of trying something new? At some point you have to accept that a round peg isn't going to fit into a square hole, and if the players can't get it done one way, why not try something new.

Are the players we're recruiting stubborn and don't care? Most athletes I've known want to please their coach, and they want to better themselves. The potential to make a difference is so great, but I don't see anyone stepping up to be that "it" guy. Why? Are they afraid to make a play or try something outside of the set system Mack is running?

I like Vee's analogy about managerial style. These players look tentative and play with very little to no heart. We may not be Kentucky talent-wise, but we're not Little Sisters of the Poor either. We've done more with less talent in the past.

[paulxu]

Maybe (probably) I'm just confused about what I read here.
It seems that poster after poster complains that Mack does not demand effort, can't get the players to function as a team, doesn't take responsibility, etc.
So, it seems that:
1 - he took responsibility. OK, let's move on to something else
2 - he demands effort in practice to earn playing time in games (something everyone use to agree upon). OK, let's move on to something else.
3 - indicates that Remy is a good defender, but has to work within the scheme to make it effective. OK,...well you get the idea.

I hate where our team is right now. The results we have so far this season. I think we can do better. I hope the coach can be effective in helping to make that happen; the players have to do their part as well. But second-guessing everything he does (certainly our right on a message board) and then when he does something that has been noted often...doesn't even satisfy the people who have noted that item.

Face it, we don't like losing. Who does. Whatever the reasons, skill level or intensity or teamwork or even coaching are all part off the equation. But we should be a little more reasonable I think. That perspective may be because some of us have lived through some darker times at X, but everybody should make an attempt at being reasonable.

And everyone should enjoy the ride. It's just a basketball game after all, not the end of the world. (I don't think)

[D-West & PO-Z]

Maybe (probably) I'm just confused about what I read here.
It seems that poster after poster complains that Mack does not demand effort, can't get the players to function as a team, doesn't take responsibility, etc.
So, it seems that:
1 - he took responsibility. OK, let's move on to something else
2 - he demands effort in practice to earn playing time in games (something everyone use to agree upon). OK, let's move on to something else.
3 - indicates that Remy is a good defender, but has to work within the scheme to make it effective. OK,...well you get the idea.

I hate where our team is right now. The results we have so far this season. I think we can do better. I hope the coach can be effective in helping to make that happen; the players have to do their part as well. But second-guessing everything he does (certainly our right on a message board) and then when he does something that has been noted often...doesn't even satisfy the people who have noted that item.

Face it, we don't like losing. Who does. Whatever the reasons, skill level or intensity or teamwork or even coaching are all part off the equation. But we should be a little more reasonable I think. That perspective may be because some of us have lived through some darker times at X, but everybody should make an attempt at being reasonable.

And everyone should enjoy the ride. It's just a basketball game after all, not the end of the world. (I don't think)

Agreed

[LadyMuskie]

Maybe (probably) I'm just confused about what I read here.
It seems that poster after poster complains that Mack does not demand effort, can't get the players to function as a team, doesn't take responsibility, etc.
So, it seems that:
1 - he took responsibility. OK, let's move on to something else
2 - he demands effort in practice to earn playing time in games (something everyone use to agree upon). OK, let's move on to something else.
3 - indicates that Remy is a good defender, but has to work within the scheme to make it effective. OK,...well you get the idea.

I hate where our team is right now. The results we have so far this season. I think we can do better. I hope the coach can be effective in helping to make that happen; the players have to do their part as well. But second-guessing everything he does (certainly our right on a message board) and then when he does something that has been noted often...doesn't even satisfy the people who have noted that item.

Face it, we don't like losing. Who does. Whatever the reasons, skill level or intensity or teamwork or even coaching are all part off the equation. But we should be a little more reasonable I think. That perspective may be because some of us have lived through some darker times at X, but everybody should make an attempt at being reasonable.

And everyone should enjoy the ride. It's just a basketball game after all, not the end of the world. (I don't think)

I'd say:
1. Just admitting fault or taking responsibility does nothing unless it is accompanied by taking the right steps to right the wrongs. It's like I tell Little LM - just saying my fault isn't enough. You have to work hard so you don't do it again.

2. It is just a game and I don't see anyone on here acting like anything but. If we aren't allowed to discuss, vent, debate then the board will shut down do to boredom. Message boards aren't the play by play guy - they're the color announcer. Sometimes it makes no sense, but you roll with it.

3. Macks message to the media is muddled, the players look confused, and adults who while not experts aren't. Village idiots either, can't figure out what the hell is going on. Everything is not a-okay.

[vee4xu]

Well, I'm focused squarely on Marquette. The team's AND coach's performances will be on display at a crucial time on the schedule. After that game I will decide if if my recently expressed concerns above are assuaged or remain.

[muskienick]

Well, he went overboard on that. No Remy Abel, your best defender and a lineup with Austin, Macura and Bluiett in to start? Uh, no. 11-2 after 3 minutes. Some improvement.

Chris totally screwed up. He forgot to call each and every one of us to find out what we thought were the appropriate changes to be made so that he would be sure to do the right thing.

This board is starting to become MusketeerMadness 2.0!

[gladdenguy]

I am flabbergasted by the lack of playing time for Remy Abell and Brandon Randolph. Puzzling to say the least.

Mack better get his act together starting Saturday. The next 2 home games should be won rather easily (Marquette and Depaul). Next Thursday is an away game against Providence so we know that will be a loss. Somehow I hope the bubble is real weak and 9-9 gets us in a play in game......if not it will be NIT city. That is if we can go 9-9 in conference. Not looking good.

[vee4xu]

One postscript. The kind of rhetoric we are hearing now from Coach about job competition and lineup shuffling should go on and be done by the end of the OOC schedule. To have no set lineup in the middle of the conference schedule and guys fighting for jobs indicates something to me reflective of the coaches. Also, this is now like the third year in a row for this same issue.

[Xavier]

I am flabbergasted by the lack of playing time for Remy Abell and Brandon Randolph. Puzzling to say the least.

Mack better get his act together starting Saturday. The next 2 home games should be won rather easily (Marquette and Depaul). Next Thursday is an away game against Providence so we know that will be a loss. Somehow I hope the bubble is real weak and 9-9 gets us in a play in game......if not it will be NIT city. That is if we can go 9-9 in conference. Not looking good.

It is every year. I think Xavier will notch one or two more top 25 wins which will be more than other bubble teams. Having said that, I think play-in game is likely unless they get a couple good wins on the road.

[LA Muskie]

Personally, I think Chris took the easy way out and sent a very mixed message. Don't get me wrong, practice is important. But by starting the "5 guys who practiced hardest" we ended up with a lineup that unquestionably was inferior talent-wise and was defensively anemic even though he has been harping on defense as our Achilles heal. In cliche terms, Mack bit off his nose to spite his face.

It's true he did something. But I wanted him to do something SMART. This was more akin to doing something for doing something's sake, even though it was entirely counter-productive in terms of addressing our primary issues on the floor. And hence, in my estimation, quite DUMB.

[boozehound]

I have been a staunch supporter of Mack. I'm not off the wagon yet, but I am concerned. The main thing that concerns me is that this team looks very tenative on both sides of the court, but particularly on defense. I find it very difficult to believe that these players are such poor athletes that we can't get better defense out of them. It's hard to play fast and aggressive when you are so tentative. I don't know what the solution is, but I'm not the coach. We may need to consider adjusting our scheme. I know Mack isn't a big fan of that, but his scheme isn't working right now with these players.

Effort is another concern for me, mostly on the road. We don't seem to go after rebounds and 50/50 balls as hard as the other team. Macura and Dee give maximum effort. I'm not so sure about some of the other guys.

I also agree with the poster(s) who are concerned about the fact that Mack seems to have no handle on his lineup more than 1/2 way through the season.

[muskiefan82]

Personally, I think Chris took the easy way out and sent a very mixed message. Don't get me wrong, practice is important. But by starting the "5 guys who practiced hardest" we ended up with a lineup that unquestionably was inferior talent-wise and was defensively anemic even though he has been harping on defense as our Achilles heal. In cliche terms, Mack bit off his nose to spite his face.

It's true he did something. But I wanted him to do something SMART. This was more akin to doing something for doing something's sake, even though it was entirely counter-productive in terms of addressing our primary issues on the floor. And hence, in my estimation, quite DUMB.

OR, he took the opportunity to make a point against a team that would have been hard to beat with the best effort and used it for a long term gain.

Or at least I PRAY that is what happened and happens.

[markchal]

I do have a slight problem with Mack's "taking accountability." His quote was such a lame cop-out "That was my fault as a coach because if I'm continuing to play guys that aren't giving the effort that's needed...that's on me."

So, even when he takes responsibility, he takes it by blaming the players. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it came off as a little hollow.

[vee4xu]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0JR6xt9S02o&autoplay=1


Maybe Coach Mack should Grab the Festivus pole and call a team meeting. ��

[XU 87]

Personally, I think Chris took the easy way out and sent a very mixed message. Don't get me wrong, practice is important. But by starting the "5 guys who practiced hardest" we ended up with a lineup that unquestionably was inferior talent-wise and was defensively anemic even though he has been harping on defense as our Achilles heal. In cliche terms, Mack bit off his nose to spite his face.

It's true he did something. But I wanted him to do something SMART. This was more akin to doing something for doing something's sake, even though it was entirely counter-productive in terms of addressing our primary issues on the floor. And hence, in my estimation, quite DUMB.

I agree with much of what you write. But if he gets more effort out of the team on a consistent basis, at least on the road, then it was a good move. If guys start to hang their heads and the team turns rudderless and into disarray, then it was bad move. We'll see.

[waggy]

I'm actually somewhat encouraged. They got their asses kicked, but there was some semblence of defense on a string of possessions in the 2nd half they can build on. They just need to as a team focus on defense. Defense, defense, defense. And rebounding. Oh glorious rebounding too!

Child please.

[waggy]

I'd like to change "somewhat encouraged" to "guardedly optimistic".


Child please.

[bleedXblue]

In a way, I feel a little bad for Mack. It seems like everything he's done this year for the most part has back fired. I certainly think he's giving his all and is frustrated as hell. In the beginning of the year he had so many new toys to play with, he was giving everyone ample opportunity to play and prove themselves. We're 17 games in and I don't think he's any further along knowing the best rotation than in game 1. Lots of reasons for that, but in the end its his job to coach, teach, evaluate, motivate etc. etc. Its why he's paid the big bucks. Could this be a situation of Mack just trying to do too many things ? Are his players playing tight and unconfident because they're confused and frustrated as well? Is it time to simplify the hell out of this thing and just tell guys to go out, play hard and have fun? Sometimes the answer is really simple and sitting right there in front of you.

[LA Muskie]

I'm actually somewhat encouraged. They got their asses kicked, but there was some semblence of defense on a string of possessions in the 2nd half they can build on. They just need to as a team focus on defense. Defense, defense, defense. And rebounding. Oh glorious rebounding too!

Child please.
The problem with this, as I see it, is that his message is muddled. How do you drill into the team DEFENSE DEFENSE DEFENSE then, essentially, bench your best defensive player (by far)? I understand that maybe Mack thinks Remy could play even better defense, and perhaps that's the message he was sending. But benching your best defensive player does not remotely make the team better defensively.

[drudy23]

How do we know Remy is our best defender? Based on what? Everyone is saying that but how do we know that? Show me.

Apparently Remy as the best defender is gospel.

There's a lot more to defense than just the on-the-ball stuff most of us would notice.

[GoMuskies]

How do we know Remy is our best defender?

It's a pretty low bar on this team anyway.

[smileyy]

In a way, I feel a little bad for Mack. It seems like everything he's done this year for the most part has back fired. I certainly think he's giving his all and is frustrated as hell. In the beginning of the year he had so many new toys to play with, he was giving everyone ample opportunity to play and prove themselves. We're 17 games in and I don't think he's any further along knowing the best rotation than in game 1. Lots of reasons for that, but in the end its his job to coach, teach, evaluate, motivate etc. etc. Its why he's paid the big bucks. Could this be a situation of Mack just trying to do too many things ? Are his players playing tight and unconfident because they're confused and frustrated as well? Is it time to simplify the hell out of this thing and just tell guys to go out, play hard and have fun? Sometimes the answer is really simple and sitting right there in front of you.

On the other hand, there's also gearing up for two years of presumably the Abell/Blueitt/Reynolds/Myles show, with (hopefully) some of the Macura show thrown in.

[smileyy]

Its not guaranteed, but its plausible that Xavier can have 4 players (Myles, Trevon, Remy, JP) in the regular rotation who shoot 40%+ from 3 point range. That's like, Villanova-esque or something.

[drudy23]

On the other hand, there's also gearing up for two years of presumably the Abell/Blueitt/Reynolds/Myles show, with (hopefully) some of the Macura show thrown in.

In 2 years, Macura will not only be "thrown in", he will be a major contributor...maybe even next year. He's a 4 year guy, and when he's an upperclassman, this team will have great leadership from him and hopefully Blueitt as well.

[GoMuskies]

In 2 years, Macura will not only be "thrown in", he will be a major contributor...maybe even next year. He's a 4 year guy, and when he's an upperclassman, this team will have great leadership from him and hopefully Blueitt as well.

Macura was a major contributor last night. I think there's a pretty good chance that's going to continue the rest of the year.

[nuts4xu]

Macura was a major contributor last night. I think there's a pretty good chance that's going to continue the rest of the year.

He's fearless, and seems to play with a chip on his shoulder. He makes mistakes, and needs to improve his defense..but he is a playmaker. He is an offensive weapon, and it will be exciting to see his development the rest of the year.

[Fireball]

The problem with this, as I see it, is that his message is muddled. How do you drill into the team DEFENSE DEFENSE DEFENSE then, essentially, bench your best defensive player (by far)? I understand that maybe Mack thinks Remy could play even better defense, and perhaps that's the message he was sending. But benching your best defensive player does not remotely make the team better defensively.

The way I read Mack's quotes is that Remy play really good individual defense, but maybe he doesn't play good team defense. So, he'd defend his particular guy really well and shut him down, but wouldn't do enough to help his teammates defend their assignments. Or maybe he is having troubles switching off when he needed to. I don't know the X's and O's well enough to go deep, but it makes sense to me that Remy has to be a good defender as part of the overall defensive scheme as well as a guy who can shut down his guy.

Maybe that hasn't gotten across to Remy yet, and that's the point Mack was trying to make.

If we had to take a bullet against Villanova to get this team where it needs to be, I'm all for it, and it really seemed like the team started to get it in the second half. We'll see what the result is starting Saturday.

[smileyy]

In 2 years, Macura will not only be "thrown in", he will be a major contributor...maybe even next year. He's a 4 year guy, and when he's an upperclassman, this team will have great leadership from him and hopefully Blueitt as well.

Yeah I totally understated his presence there. Originally I had written Abell/Blueitt/Reynolds, then remembered that Myles is shooting 45%+ from 3, and then remembered Macura too. I should have put them all together.

The next couple of years will be interesting, certainly. I think Dee Davis and Matt Stainbrook both bring a lot to the table, but they also take a lot of things off the table. I'm not saying the team will be better or worse without them, but they'll play differently.

E.g., Dee is short; Matt gets exposed in small lineups when the other team has a 4s who can go out on the floor as the only big man/men, etc.

[Masterofreality]

Maybe (probably) I'm just confused about what I read here.
3 - indicates that Remy is a good defender, but has to work within the scheme to make it effective. OK,...well you get the idea......

I hate where our team is right now. The results we have so far this season. I think we can do better. I hope the coach can be effective in helping to make that happen; the players have to do their part as well. But second-guessing everything he does (certainly our right on a message board) and then when he does something that has been noted often...doesn't even satisfy the people who have noted that item.

Well, Pauly, it is hard to have a guy "work within the scheme better" if he's not even on the court. Not only that, there are other players on this team who are a damn site worse from jump on defense that you are not seeing "work within the scheme". Who would you rather have out there, someone who can at least defend one on one then work with him to be better all around, or a guy who can't stay in front of a red barn and trying to work him into the scheme? Give me Remy out there.

Finally, there was no second guessing in our group last night. The lineup was posted on the scoreboard 10 minutes before tip off. Every single person in our group said the same thing- not having Abell out there was a huge mistake and within the first 2 minutes it was proven. I still cannot fathom that lineup.

That being said, Beat the Warriors....errrrr, Golden Eagles.

[sweet16]

No, nattering nabob of negativism. No we will not.

You have no credibility only showing up after bad games and never having a positive thing to say.

I hope you enjoy your time in deep dark hell, because that is where you seem to live.

Not me, I've posted less than ten times since the season started and half of those posts had nothing to do with Mack or the team. On another occasion (after the Missouri game) I praised the team on a nice road win.

[muskiefan82]

Not me, I've posted less than ten times since the season started and half of those posts had nothing to do with Mack or the team. On another occasion (after the Missouri game) I praised the team on a nice road win.

I vaguely remember that road win......seems like a year ago. Wait. It sort of was.

[XU 87]

No, nattering nabob of negativism. No we will not.

You have no credibility only showing up after bad games and never having a positive thing to say.

I hope you enjoy your time in deep dark hell, because that is where you seem to live.

This is one of the funnier posts I've read in a while. Sorry I can't rep you.

[chico]

No, nattering nabob of negativism. No we will not.

You have no credibility only showing up after bad games and never having a positive thing to say.

I hope you enjoy your time in deep dark hell, because that is where you seem to live.

That is beautiful. MOR you are the man. Wish I could rep you as well.

[XAVIER1103]

Mack has really screwed Randolph up I have been trying to figure out for the life of me how a 4 star Mcdonald All American Nominee with a list of schools recrutiing him ends up like this I think his first game at X 12 points 7 assist. Mack has really done a number on this kid a kid that comes 1,000 of miles from home and end up in a situation like this. I just hope he can regroup

[paulxu]

Well, Pauly, it is hard to have a guy "work within the scheme better" if he's not even on the court.

Don't you think it's a little presumptuous to assume you know what Mack is trying to accomplish without being at every practice?
I'm not disagreeing that based on what we have seen, Remy is a much better defender than Austin, or whomever.
But maybe there is a lot more to it than we know. That's why he gets paid to coach, not us.
We should have our opinions, they may appear sound and solid, but they are formed without all the facts.
That's all I'm saying.

Well, that and that when you wish for something (innumerable suggestions on exactly what Mack should or shouldn't do) and he actually does some of those things, then man up and stop complaining.

[Xavier]

Mack has really screwed Randolph up I have been trying to figure out for the life of me how a 4 star Mcdonald All American Nominee with a list of schools recrutiing him ends up like this I think his first game at X 12 points 7 assist. Mack has really done a number on this kid a kid that comes 1,000 of miles from home and end up in a situation like this. I just hope he can regroup

If Mack really screwed him up so much then Randolph isn't tough enough. When some people get in the doghouse they don't respond. Others figure it out and get better...I don't know why he is in the doghouse but I hope he is in the latter group.

[waggy]

Count me in for the lather group!

[Xaveriana]

Paul, taking responsibility is admirable but the question is how is he communicating his message, what is his message and is his message consistent. The lack of progress from early season blowouts, followed by poor holiday tournament play and declining play in the conference schedule is now a trend. That's reflective of management. The effort we're seeing may be due to players being confused about what their coach expects,thus impacting performance of really talented players.

I completely agree V. Speaking of trend...time to post my annual Chris Mack "Hater" image. To some degree every Chris Mack-coached Xavier team has experienced these same issues. Nothing seems to improve including our recruits. Do believe he can recruit. Just don't believe he can coach in practice or during games. I long for the day I don't feel compelled to post this image. Sad.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7514/16263624676_2d300a0ce3_b.jpg

[JEHARDI]

B
They're projected to be safely in the tournament while we are planted firmly on the bubble.

The funny thing about you mentioning them missing the tourney 2 of the last 3 years it that it actually bolsters my argument.

If Butler can turn that around that quickly to where they are today there is no reason we should continue to use the past as an excuse for our current struggles.
The season is not over pal, they have not accomplished anything yet.

[boozehound]

I completely agree V. Speaking of trend...time to post my annual Chris Mack "Hater" image. To some degree every Chris Mack-coached Xavier team has experienced these same issues. Nothing seems to improve including our recruits. Do believe he can recruit. Just don't believe he can coach in practice or during games. I long for the day I don't feel compelled to post this image. Sad.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7514/16263624676_2d300a0ce3_b.jpg

I also long for the day when you don't feel compelled to post that. The only way that image could be gayer is if it was an pic of 2 dudes getting it on.

[LadyMuskie]

I also long for the day when you don't feel compelled to post that. The only way that image could be gayer is if it was an pic of 2 dudes getting it on.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Masterofreality]

I also long for the day when you don't feel compelled to post that. The only way that image could be gayer is if it was an pic of 2 dudes getting it on.


Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Actually, there could be.

[DC Muskie]

I'm actually somewhat encouraged. They got their asses kicked, but there was some semblence of defense on a string of possessions in the 2nd half they can build on. They just need to as a team focus on defense. Defense, defense, defense. And rebounding. Oh glorious rebounding too!

Child please.

Yes, this is my thought exactly.

[IM4X]

Personally, I think Chris took the easy way out and sent a very mixed message. Don't get me wrong, practice is important. But by starting the "5 guys who practiced hardest" we ended up with a lineup that unquestionably was inferior talent-wise and was defensively anemic even though he has been harping on defense as our Achilles heal. In cliche terms, Mack bit off his nose to spite his face.

It's true he did something. But I wanted him to do something SMART. This was more akin to doing something for doing something's sake, even though it was entirely counter-productive in terms of addressing our primary issues on the floor. And hence, in my estimation, quite DUMB.

Agreed.

[IM4X]

Point is it's not Coach Mack's comments to us that matters those comments are coming from the results of communicating with his team. One point Randolph is the guy, followed by two DNP's. One day Remy's tearing it up, next he doesn't start in the biggest game of the year and plays 9 minutes. One day Austin is forgotten on the bench, next he's starting on against the the No. 4 team in the country. These are 20 year old kidS. They need consistency on from their coach just like they need from their parents. Confidence of young folks is easily compromised and inconsistency is a main culprit to eroding confidence now matter what's the situation.

Yes. Nicely put.

[IM4X]

Isn't this what everybody has been waiting for? Mack to take responsibility? Mack to demand toughness out of his players?

"

So he does, and everybody continues to complain about his lineup choices?
Some people are just never happy I guess.


Isn't this what everybody has been waiting for? Mack to take responsibility? Mack to demand toughness out of his players?

"

So he does, and everybody continues to complain about his lineup choices?
Some people are just never happy I guess.


No. Any coach can demand something of his players. A very good coach will let them know what he expects of them and then shows them exactly how to do it well. I'm not so sure Mack is doing the last past.

And speaking of responsibility... Are you really taking responsibility as a coach if you are only admitting your fault is playing players you are blaming. If they are not doing what you asking them to do again and again, maybe you are simply unable to show them the proper way to improve.

This question of "players not giving effort" seems to resurface year after year with Mack. So either Mack just happens to keep recruiting kids who are lazier than average (and extra hard to motivate), or maybe, just maybe coach needs to admit that he needs to work on his coaching skills.

Mack has said in previous years when things went wrong, "You can't coach effort."
I've heard the argument that effort only comes from within. That's hogwash. If you know how to motivate kids and give them a reason to want to give more effort, they will give more effort.

If you have a smart approach to help the team play better and you can get players to buy into what you are teaching them and those players get to see things click, you will see both skills as well as effort get better. I'm not seeing the smart approach or the buying in or the clicking yet.

I do hear a coach once again demanding that his players give better effort and to grow up.

[paulxu]

All the coach bashing after losses is getting pretty tired at this point.

I know that when you lash out -- be it Chris or Dee or someone else -- it is mostly from emotion and frustration. I get it. But try to remember why you are such a fan in the first place, and try to recognize that when you bash your own, you are breaking down that which you love, brick by brick.


Personally, I think Chris took the easy way out and sent a very mixed message.

It's true he did something. But I wanted him to do something SMART. This was more akin to doing something for doing something's sake, even though it was entirely counter-productive in terms of addressing our primary issues on the floor. And hence, in my estimation, quite DUMB.

That's a "mixed message."

And, since Coach K lost on the road to NC State, and followed that by getting drubbed at home by Miami (breaking a 41 game home winning streak) he is also a dumb coach.

[LA Muskie]

That's a "mixed message."

And, since Coach K lost on the road to NC State, and followed that by getting drubbed at home by Miami (breaking a 41 game home winning streak) he is also a dumb coach.

But it's not. It's criticism. Which is fine. I didn't say he was a dumb coach. Or person. I didn't say he should be fired. Or left out to pasture. I said I thought his attempted solution to his self-identified problem was counter-intuitive. I explained why. And I left it at that. (The word "dumb" didn't seem horribly offensive to describe his strategy, but if it offends you I apologize.)

[PMI]

I am a bigger Mack supporter than it seems many are anymore and I'm not at the point where I'm freaking out just yet. But I also had a very difficult time understanding the logic in how the lineups were handled to start the Nova game and throughout it. I don't get giving Austin his first major minutes in a starting role in that kind of game, or starting JP Macura when the alleged plan is to put a better defensive lineup on the floor. I don't understand leaving your best defensive player (this is not really a debate for anyone with two eyes) and one of the best overall players in Remy on the bench for most of the game. It was just really confusing and I wouldn't be surprised if the players were confused too, which is worrisome. It did feel like a reach and a desperate attempt at throwing shit at the wall.

I'm a big fan of Macura and love his potential, but watching him in person and being able to focus on him off the ball a bit too, he's one of the worst defenders we've had in our backcourt in awhile. He single-handedly gave up about 13 points only 4 or 5 minutes into the game. He plays hard and obviously provides offensive punch, but against a team that can explode like Nova, I simply don't understand the logic. It's almost a concession that you're going to give an excellent shooting team WIDE open threes on every possession at home, which doesn't strike me as a great plan.

All in all though, I still think there's a chance that a net positive could come from it all, and that a message got through. They did play better in the second half for large stretches. Against a lesser team, they may have been able to complete the comeback, but not against the fifth ranked team at their place. The Villanova fans were alarmingly weak and quiet, and nobody talked smack or got rowdy, so they obviously aren't Philly natives. That was not a high-octane road atmosphere in the least, just a really good team doing what they do. My hope is that Mack was able to use this opportunity in some kind of motivational way, which he was clearly attempting, and that with a couple of home games ahead we can build some momentum. I really believe he's trying everything he can, and maybe that leads to being a bit desperate, but mentality is a funny thing. I hope he hammered something through and this team finds some swag to get things going again. I just don't know what to make of what I saw honestly.

[Xville]

I have been pretty critical of Mack and the players this season on the road. However, I think the lineup change was great because I believe that to the right person, it sent a message. In the short term, it was a bad move...I mean having Austin and Macura starting against that good of a team is a little ridiculous. However, in the long term, I am hoping that it sent the right message. Abel, Randolph, Myles (all the players who played little to 0 minutes) should now understand, that if they don't practice hard, and if they don't bring it in games as well, then you sit the bench. Yes Remy has been probably our best defender on the ball this season, but apparently he has not been doing it in practice...don't do it in practice, don't play. I think that is very fair.

If that message by Mack is not received well by those three guys, then fine, I don't want those guys on the team anyways...they can rot on the bench or transfer for all I care. This is not grade school, high school or even division 1 mid-major basketball, this is high major Div. 1 Big East basketball...there is no room for coddling and worrying about hurting peoples' feelings. I applaud this move by Mack...finally he did something.

It isn't like Mack is the first coach to ever do this...Pitino does this stuff all the time and I think we can all agree that the guy is one helluva coach. He has done it so far this season with one of the best guards on the team...the message was sent loud and clear, and now that player (Chris Jones) is a completely different player and his helping rather than hurting the team.

I think we all have to take the tunnel vision off of what Mack did the other night, and focus on the big picture here. That move wasn't necessarily about the game the other night...it was more about the games @providence @marquette @st. johns etc. I applaud it.

[xu82]

I think it was the perfect opportunity to make a point. We were unlikely to win that game regardless of who the starters were or who sat extensively. The quick start and a 35 point beat down would not help to reinforce the lesson, but they did keep fighting. It had to be a shock to some guys, and I hope it can help to turn things around. That's the thing about our depth, it should lead to competition and a greater level of effort.

[XUFan09]

I think a lot of people are misrepresenting what Mack was doing, so they're criticizing him for the wrong thing. The basic gist I'm reading is this:

"If Mack wanted his best defense out there, then why did Abell not start and why did he only play 9 minutes? Why did Macura start and play 25? Why did Austin start and play 20?"

These would be worthy questions if the initial premise ("Mack wanted his best defense") was correct. However, Mack did not want his best defense out there. He wanted players on the court who were making the strongest effort on defense in a road game and in the practices leading up to that game, which is different from defense in general. Also, remember that the slate was wiped clean for this week of practices, so past history is irrevelant.

This same defense held Seton Hall, the #36 offense in adjusted efficiency, to 0.98 points per possession. It held Georgetown, the #48 offense (#22 at the time before they've fallen off), to 0.84 points per possession. The thing is, those were home games. The problem for this team isn't the defense. The problem is that the team is not replicating similar defensive results on the road, and a lot of that comes down to the level of effort given in other venues. DePaul's offense is ranked a respectable 79th, but Xavier still shouldn't allow 1.11 points per possession. Butler's offense is ranked 55th, but they torched Xavier in the second half to finish with 1.29 points per possession. Auburn's offense is ranked an abysmal 238th and they actually have an adjusted efficiency less than a point per possession, but Xavier let them score 1.06 points per possession. The only time this defense on the road was respectable was way back at Mizzou, when they held the 129th offense to 0.89 points per possession.

So when Mack starts Macura, it's because he generally busts his ass all the time, home or away, even if he's likely the worst defender on the team (and he was immediately yanked this game when he watched a three-point attempt go up rather than race to give a late contest). When Mack starts Austin, it's because he's giving his all every day (and at least Austin is a decent defender). When Mack starts Stainbrook and Bluiett, despite their physical limitations on defense, it's because they are working harder than the other players. And then Dee is actually good defensively, but he too is on the court not for his defense but for the effort he gives every day.

Abell is the best defender on the team, but apparently he's not giving the same effort as these other guys. When the message is defensive effort, not defense in general, he's not going to earn minutes. His defense would help in the short run, but in the long run, this team needs a unified effort to execute defensively. To ensure that unity, the most skilled defensive player can't be given a pass. Also, let's not act like this message on defensive effort came out of nowhere. Mack has mentioned it numerous times to the press this season, so you can generally assume that anything said to the press has been said a hundred times over to the player.


tl;dr
Mack wasn't trying to put the best defense out there. He was giving minutes to the players who put out the most effort, because in the long run, the level of effort given by the team in a lot of ways will determine how good they are defensively.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I have been pretty critical of Mack and the players this season on the road. However, I think the lineup change was great because I believe that to the right person, it sent a message. In the short term, it was a bad move...I mean having Austin and Macura starting against that good of a team is a little ridiculous. However, in the long term, I am hoping that it sent the right message. Abel, Randolph, Myles (all the players who played little to 0 minutes) should now understand, that if they don't practice hard, and if they don't bring it in games as well, then you sit the bench. Yes Remy has been probably our best defender on the ball this season, but apparently he has not been doing it in practice...don't do it in practice, don't play. I think that is very fair.

If that message by Mack is not received well by those three guys, then fine, I don't want those guys on the team anyways...they can rot on the bench or transfer for all I care. This is not grade school, high school or even division 1 mid-major basketball, this is high major Div. 1 Big East basketball...there is no room for coddling and worrying about hurting peoples' feelings. I applaud this move by Mack...finally he did something.

It isn't like Mack is the first coach to ever do this...Pitino does this stuff all the time and I think we can all agree that the guy is one helluva coach. He has done it so far this season with one of the best guards on the team...the message was sent loud and clear, and now that player (Chris Jones) is a completely different player and his helping rather than hurting the team.

I think we all have to take the tunnel vision off of what Mack did the other night, and focus on the big picture here. That move wasn't necessarily about the game the other night...it was more about the games @providence @marquette @st. johns etc. I applaud it.


I think it was the perfect opportunity to make a point. We were unlikely to win that game regardless of who the starters were or who sat extensively. The quick start and a 35 point beat down would not help to reinforce the lesson, but they did keep fighting. It had to be a shock to some guys, and I hope it can help to turn things around. That's the thing about our depth, it should lead to competition and a greater level of effort.


I think a lot of people are misrepresenting what Mack was doing, so they're criticizing him for the wrong thing. The basic gist I'm reading is this:

"If Mack wanted his best defense out there, then why did Abell not start and why did he only play 9 minutes? Why did Macura start and play 25? Why did Austin start and play 20?"

These would be worthy questions if the initial premise ("Mack wanted his best defense") was correct. However, Mack did not want his best defense out there. He wanted players on the court who were making the strongest effort on defense in a road game and in the practices leading up to that game, which is different from defense in general. Also, remember that the slate was wiped clean for this week of practices, so past history is irrevelant.

This same defense held Seton Hall, the #36 offense in adjusted efficiency, to 0.98 points per possession. It held Georgetown, the #48 offense (#22 at the time before they've fallen off), to 0.84 points per possession. The thing is, those were home games. The problem for this team isn't the defense. The problem is that the team is not replicating similar defensive results on the road, and a lot of that comes down to the level of effort given in other venues. DePaul's offense is ranked a respectable 79th, but Xavier still shouldn't allow 1.11 points per possession. Butler's offense is ranked 55th, but they torched Xavier in the second half to finish with 1.29 points per possession. Auburn's offense is ranked an abysmal 238th and they actually have an adjusted efficiency less than a point per possession, but Xavier let them score 1.06 points per possession. The only time this defense on the road was respectable was way back at Mizzou, when they held the 129th offense to 0.89 points per possession.

So when Mack starts Macura, it's because he generally busts his ass all the time, home or away, even if he's likely the worst defender on the team (and he was immediately yanked this game when he watched a three-point attempt go up rather than race to give a late contest). When Mack starts Austin, it's because he's giving his all every day (and at least Austin is a decent defender). When Mack starts Stainbrook and Bluiett, despite their physical limitations on defense, it's because they are working harder than the other players. And then Dee is actually good defensively, but he too is on the court not for his defense but for the effort he gives every day.

Abell is the best defender on the team, but apparently he's not giving the same effort as these other guys. When the message is defensive effort, not defense in general, he's not going to earn minutes. His defense would help in the short run, but in the long run, this team needs a unified effort to execute defensively. To ensure that unity, the most skilled defensive player can't be given a pass. Also, let's not act like this message on defensive effort came out of nowhere. Mack has mentioned it numerous times to the press this season, so you can generally assume that anything said to the press has been said a hundred times over to the player.

Yeah I am on the same age as these 3 posts. I dont have a problem with what Mack did and we really dont know if the players were surprised and confused by it either, they may very well know what they did or didnt do and completely understand what Mack was doing. Doesnt mean they like it but as xville said this isnt grade school basketball I am not worried about a players feelings being hurt and I am not concerned with Mack coddling them, people have referenced Sean Miller numerous times being hard on his players, seems like thats what Mack was doing. I'll continue to give Mack the benefit of the doubt for now. I am just glad I saw he was trying to do something to fix these road issues and at Villanova was probably a god place to try something new and push some buttons as we could (as much as we dont like that) probably chalk that up as a loss regardless of how we were doing on the road.

[LA Muskie]

These would be worthy questions if the initial premise ("Mack wanted his best defense") was correct. However, Mack did not want his best defense out there. He wanted players on the court who were making the strongest effort on defense in a road game and in the practices leading up to that game, which is different from defense in general. Also, remember that the slate was wiped clean for this week of practices, so past history is irrevelant.
I don't necessarily disagree with you. But if that's the case, I disagree with Mack because it's akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. Effort is great because, when combined with talent and skill, it produces greater results. But effort merely for effort's sake does little to advance the ball.

Put mathematically, where Effort + Skill = Performance on the defensive side of the ball, Remy's defensive performance is will almost always be substantially greater than JP's (and Bluiett's) even with less effort, because his skill factor is significantly greater.

And Mack must know this. So assuming he was thinking as you posit (and that is what he said, so I suspect you are right), he basically sacrificed this game for the greater good. And that, my friends, is a dangerous play. Especially for what was our single best opportunity to get a statement win all season.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I don't necessarily disagree with you. But if that's the case, I disagree with Mack because it's akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. Effort is great because, when combined with talent and skill, it produces greater results. But effort merely for effort's sake does little to advance the ball.

Put mathematically, where Effort + Skill = Performance on the defensive side of the ball, Remy's defensive performance is will almost always be substantially greater than JP's (and Bluiett's) even with less effort, because his skill factor is significantly greater.

And Mack must know this. So assuming he was thinking as you posit (and that is what he said, so I suspect you are right), he basically sacrificed this game for the greater good. And that, my friends, is a dangerous play. Especially for what was our single best opportunity to get a statement win all season.

I think it would be a dangerous play if we had a realistic shot of winning. I know we dont like to hear or think that we dont given the fact that we are a good basketball program that should expect to be able to have a chance to win most any game but given our current state, specifically on the road, I think there was little to no chance we beat a top 5 team in their building. I think it was the best time, maybe the only time, for Mack to send the kind of message he sent. If he did this at Marquette or Creighton, or Providence where we have a much better chance/expectation of a win then I would agree.

Given that it was at Villanova I think it was a good spot to send a message to Remy that just because his performance is better than others even without full effort, that not giving full effort wont be tolerated. I'll take that message over "Remy I know you dont give full effort but beause your talent level is higher I will accept that you dont give all your effort and play you for the whole game anyway." That I believe is the more dangerous game to play. Something some of our previous coaches would never accept. Glad to see Mack wont either.

[Xville]

I don't necessarily disagree with you. But if that's the case, I disagree with Mack because it's akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. Effort is great because, when combined with talent and skill, it produces greater results. But effort merely for effort's sake does little to advance the ball.

Put mathematically, where Effort + Skill = Performance on the defensive side of the ball, Remy's defensive performance is will almost always be substantially greater than JP's (and Bluiett's) even with less effort, because his skill factor is significantly greater.

And Mack must know this. So assuming he was thinking as you posit (and that is what he said, so I suspect you are right), he basically sacrificed this game for the greater good. And that, my friends, is a dangerous play. Especially for what was our single best opportunity to get a statement win all season.

I disagree that it is a dangerous play. We weren't going to beat Villanova on the road with the people that are on this roster, its not going to happen. Let's get real. Now I doubt Mack is telling his players that, but deep down he probably knows the same thing and so he figured this was the game to send a message...hopefully, message received.

[vee4xu]

It's been fun sharing thoughts, conjecture, playing games to send messages versus playing to win, communication style and effectiveness, etc. The answer will be squarely in front of each of us at around 2:15 pm tomorrow afternoon.

I am hoping for a Xavier golden shower on the Golden Eagles. Hopefully, the team won't be pissing in the wind.

[chico]

I disagree that it is a dangerous play. We weren't going to beat Villanova on the road with the people that are on this roster, its not going to happen. Let's get real. Now I doubt Mack is telling his players that, but deep down he probably knows the same thing and so he figured this was the game to send a message...hopefully, message received.

The problem with your scenario is Mack's actions are telling his team that he thinks they have no chance. Why would a coach ever give that message? You really think the players aren't smart enough to see what he's doing? Oh, we intelligent internet message board bastions of thought can clearly see what Mack's doing, and what he's thinking. But his team - the ones that see him every day - can't see it.

[D-West & PO-Z]

The problem with your scenario is Mack's actions are telling his team that he thinks they have no chance. Why would a coach ever give that message? You really think the players aren't smart enough to see what he's doing? Oh, we intelligent internet message board bastions of thought can clearly see what Mack's doing, and what he's thinking. But his team - the ones that see him every day - can't see it.

Mack's actions are telling them if you arent giving your full effort in practice as well as games, you will sit in favor of someone who is, regardless that you may be more talented than them. I think thats a great message. Not great for winning, but great for getting players to buy in to giving their full effort all the time. I think he chose the correct game to send that message too.

[Xville]

The problem with your scenario is Mack's actions are telling his team that he thinks they have no chance. Why would a coach ever give that message? You really think the players aren't smart enough to see what he's doing? Oh, we intelligent internet message board bastions of thought can clearly see what Mack's doing, and what he's thinking. But his team - the ones that see him every day - can't see it.

the message wasn't we are going to lose anyways so let's play some guys with less talent so we lose by more. The message was you don't put forth the effort every day..fine you will sit, and the guys who put forth the effort will play. My message was that this was the best game to do that, because i don't think we were going to realistically win anyways.

What would you have wanted Mack to do? Just continue the same lineup game in and game out on the road and expect different results? Maybe they could run some more drills. The light wasn't clicking on for this team, and quite frankly I don't believe there is the senior leader on this team that is going to go all Chalmers in the locker room and tell players that enough is enough. If we had any upper classmen like that, I don't believe Mack would have to resort to what he did the other night....but there isn't someone like that on the roster as far from what I can tell and so Mack had to do what Mack had to do. I think Macura and Bluiett are going to be like that, but being freshmen they just can't...yet. I think this may be the best thing Mack has ever done, but obviously we won't know for a few games to see if it worked...it's all conjecture at this point.

[Xville]

It's been fun sharing thoughts, conjecture, playing games to send messages versus playing to win, communication style and effectiveness, etc. The answer will be squarely in front of each of us at around 2:15 pm tomorrow afternoon.

I am hoping for a Xavier golden shower on the Golden Eagles. Hopefully, the team won't be pissing in the wind.

I don't think tomorrow will tell us anything...we are going to win the game...its at home against an average opponent. The next couple of away games are the ones that will tell us something.

[kyxu]

I don't think tomorrow will tell us anything...we are going to win the game...its at home against an average opponent. The next couple of away games are the ones that will tell us something.

Agree completely. Tomorrow's game will only tell us something if we do not win.

[chico]

Mack's actions are telling them if you arent giving your full effort in practice as well as games, you will sit in favor of someone who is, regardless that you may be more talented than them. I think thats a great message. Not great for winning, but great for getting players to buy in to giving their full effort all the time. I think he chose the correct game to send that message too.

No - according to xville's scenario, Mack already thought we were going to lose and as such his actions gave that message to the team.

I don't know what Mack's message is here - it's all just talk. But I sure as hell hope it wasn't what xville thought it was.

[chico]

the message wasn't we are going to lose anyways so let's play some guys with less talent so we lose by more. The message was you don't put forth the effort every day..fine you will sit, and the guys who put forth the effort will play. My message was that this was the best game to do that, because i don't think we were going to realistically win anyways.

What would you have wanted Mack to do? Just continue the same lineup game in and game out on the road and expect different results? Maybe they could run some more drills. The light wasn't clicking on for this team, and quite frankly I don't believe there is the senior leader on this team that is going to go all Chalmers in the locker room and tell players that enough is enough. If we had any upper classmen like that, I don't believe Mack would have to resort to what he did the other night....but there isn't someone like that on the roster as far from what I can tell and so Mack had to do what Mack had to do. I think Macura and Bluiett are going to be like that, but being freshmen they just can't...yet. I think this may be the best thing Mack has ever done, but obviously we won't know for a few games to see if it worked...it's all conjecture at this point.

Fine - he wants to send a message of you don't work you don't play that's one thing. But that's not what you said. What you said is that since Mack figured we were going to lose anyway why use this game to teach some lessons. You said deep down he knows we weren't going to win, so why not use the game to teach. And that's not what you do as a coach - in the immortal words of Herm Edwards, "You play to win the game." And it what you're saying is true, Mack wasn't playing to win the game.

[Xville]

No - according to xville's scenario, Mack already thought we were going to lose and as such his actions gave that message to the team.

I don't know what Mack's message is here - it's all just talk. But I sure as hell hope it wasn't what xville thought it was.

I think you read what i was saying incorrectly....I said that yes deep down he probably thought they were going to lose the game anyways, so this was a good spot. I never said that his actions sent that message to the team.

[D-West & PO-Z]

No - according to xville's scenario, Mack already thought we were going to lose and as such his actions gave that message to the team.

I don't know what Mack's message is here - it's all just talk. But I sure as hell hope it wasn't what xville thought it was.

To be 100% honest I think anyone with a sense of reality (fans, coaches, players, etc) knew we weren't going to win at Villanova. If we go play Kentucky tomorrow would our team go in thinking we could win the game? I know its kind of a dirty thought to think our teams could go in to games thinking they wont win but it is just reality, especially given our current team and their current issues/problems.

I have no problem if Mack's thoughts were lets send a message @Villanova so that we can later down the road we have a team that is ready and able to get wins @ Creighton, @Marquette, @Providence and so on.

[Xville]

To be 100% honest I think anyone with a sense of reality (fans, coaches, players, etc) knew we weren't going to win at Villanova. If we go play Kentucky tomorrow would our team go in thinking we could win the game? I know its kind of a dirty thought to think our teams could go in to games thinking they wont win but it is just reality, especially given our current team and their current issues/problems.

I have no problem if Mack's thoughts were lets send a message @Villanova so that we can later down the road we have a team that is ready and able to get wins @ Creighton, @Marquette, @Providence and so on.

I think mentally and physically tough teams even if they aren't as talented as Kentucky, would believe that they could win. However, so far, outside of the second half the other night this team hasn't been mentally or physically tough...that is one message that Mack hopefully got thru to these guys the other night....you have to be physically and mentally tough to win on the road and a lot of that is effort and knowing how good you can possibly be.

[XUFan09]

I don't think Mack was treating it simply as a throwaway game. Coaches are way too competitive by nature for that. But since he's been harping to the players about giving a full 35-second/40-minute effort, I think the message, implicitly or explicitly, was something like this:

"Yes, these moves hurt our chances of success some for this game, but our chances of success for the season as a whole are hurt much worse by not doing it." Giving slack to players like Remy is itself a very dangerous move, as it sends a mixed message to the team. The team has multiple problems defensively, but so much of it comes back to simple effort. Effort alone is the difference between a bad defensive team with a top-10 offense and an okay defensive team with a top-10 offense. The latter is easily a single-digit seed in the tournament, while the former is likely in the NIT. That's a huge swing.

Also, to go back to a point I made elsewhere, starting lineups in themselves are not that significant strategically and matter much more as a symbolic point.* A player could start and end up playing only 8-10 minutes that game, or a player could come off the bench and play 30+. Remy, for example, appears to have lost his starting spot through his practice performance this week. He probably would have still been able to earn back most of his minutes in-game, but apparently the coaches weren't happy with his first-half performance before he went out with two fouls. Myles and Farr also saw reduced minutes, likely in good part due to how consistent their effort had been in practice and in the game. I don't believe either even subbed in at the under-16 timeout, despite one normally starting and the other normally subbing in then. The cut in minutes to those three combined contributed to Austin playing for 20 minutes. What I think we'll see this next game or two games from now is Austin playing single-digit minutes as Dee's backup (replacing Randolph), and these three guys shifting back up to their normal minutes. Farr's minutes might not go up if Reynolds is starting to more consistently play well, but that's a different situation from the one we're discussing.



*I'm not saying there is no strategic value to the starting lineup, but it is vastly overrated by fans.

[vee4xu]

Agree completely. Tomorrow's game will only tell us something if we do not win.

Which is exactly my point.

[kyxu]

Which is exactly my point.

Gotcha. I, like Xville, interpreted your comment that the "answer would be in front of us at 2:15 p.m. tomorrow" as in, the answer would come after the Marquette game.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I think mentally and physically tough teams even if they aren't as talented as Kentucky, would believe that they could win. However, so far, outside of the second half the other night this team hasn't been mentally or physically tough...that is one message that Mack hopefully got thru to these guys the other night....you have to be physically and mentally tough to win on the road and a lot of that is effort and knowing how good you can possibly be.

Yeah true. I should ammend my comments and I dont think its very often if ever that XU teams would go into a game really thinking they couldnt win. I dont think Mack necessarily thought that. I do think though that this was the best game and maybe the only to really try to hammer home the message he hammered home. Hopefully it worked.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I don't think Mack was treating it simply as a throwaway game. Coaches are way too competitive by nature for that. But since he's been harping to the players about giving a full 35-second/40-minute effort, I think the message, implicitly or explicitly, was something like this:

"Yes, these moves hurt our chances of success some for this game, but our chances of success for the season as a whole are hurt much worse by not doing it." Giving slack to players like Remy is itself a very dangerous move, as it sends a mixed message to the team. The team has multiple problems defensively, but so much of it comes back to simple effort. Effort alone is the difference between a bad defensive team with a top-10 offense and an okay defensive team with a top-10 offense. The latter is easily a single-digit seed in the tournament, while the former is likely in the NIT. That's a huge swing.

.

Yeah I think this was exactly his attitude.

[chico]

I don't think tomorrow will tell us anything...we are going to win the game...its at home against an average opponent. The next couple of away games are the ones that will tell us something.

You had disagreed to LA's statement that throwing away the game was a dangerous move. The reason you gave for that was that Mack didn't think we were going to win, anyway. And since he didn't think we were going to win, he decided to make a point. My point is basically that I agree with LA, and that if Mack is giving away games - not matter how little chance we may have for victory - it's not a good road to go down.

I'm hoping his message was that if we play together as a team and give it our all, there is nobody we can't compete with. And if some of the players aren't on board with this, you aren't going to play and as such you'll be hurting the team.

But again this is all guesswork, plus it's Friday afternoon and we have a game tomorrow, so let's hope whatever message he sent gets this team's collective head right.

[xufan2434]

This argument is just going in circles..

People wanted changes and demanded they be more than just little subtle ones.. He made a couple drastic changes to do what he thought was necessary to get his players motivated and wake up. And now people are mad because he didn't play the same lineup he had been playing because it would have given X the best chance to win and it is sending "the wrong message to the players". Make up your mind. You either wanted the same road routine and lineup or for Mack to actually do something most complained he wouldn't. Either way none of this matters until next Thursday night when X goes to Providence. I believe it was for the better. We'll all know for sure soon enough.

[xuinmd]

2434, you are way too logical for a message board.

[LA Muskie]

What I think is really interesting about this is the notion that Remy was somehow our problem. He didn't seem to be a problem when I was watching. Not at home against Georgetown. Not on the road at Butler. And never -- ever -- did Mack mention anything negative about Remy previously. I'm not saying Chris hasn't identified issues with Remy's performance or effort. I'm just sort of surprised because it seems to have come from out of the blue.

On a similar note, Mack praised Myles for developing into a vocal floor leader. But he also seemed to be in Mack's dog-house Wednesday night (albeit to a lesser extent).

My concern (and again, I will grant you I'm not in the locker room) is that guys are getting mixed messages, and that some of our harder working leaders will feel like they are being made the scapegoats for others' deficiencies. This team is talented, but has some gaping holes. Remy hasn't seemed to have many. And Myles has by and large played above his.

[Xcited]

The only "mixed messages" are coming from this board. How would you ever know if the coach was sending a mixed message unless he told you what the message was, which he's not going to do. It's all pure speculation and the more you speculate the more the message, whatever it is, gets mixed. Oh what a web we weave.

[xu82]

It's fun to speculate based upon what we see and think we know. The problem is we don't know what we don't know. With full knowledge this may all make perfect sense. Or it may not.... There, did that clear things up?

[XUFan09]

What I think is really interesting about this is the notion that Remy was somehow our problem. He didn't seem to be a problem when I was watching. Not at home against Georgetown. Not on the road at Butler. And never -- ever -- did Mack mention anything negative about Remy previously. I'm not saying Chris hasn't identified issues with Remy's performance or effort. I'm just sort of surprised because it seems to have come from out of the blue.

On a similar note, Mack praised Myles for developing into a vocal floor leader. But he also seemed to be in Mack's dog-house Wednesday night (albeit to a lesser extent).

My concern (and again, I will grant you I'm not in the locker room) is that guys are getting mixed messages, and that some of our harder working leaders will feel like they are being made the scapegoats for others' deficiencies. This team is talented, but has some gaping holes. Remy hasn't seemed to have many. And Myles has by and large played above his.

I think Remy has only become a major topic because most of the people who disagreed with Mack's moves were highlighting his lack of minutes, in part because they (iMO mistakenly) believed that the message was "defense," not "effort." Consequently, those who generally supported Mack's moves have had to provide a response to the complaint that Remy didn't play much.

I think the "clean slate" concept has made for an interesting situation. Being "in the doghouse" is generally a development over time (e.g. Randolph's diminishing minutes). Thus, I don't think Remy or Myles are actually in the doghouse. Rather, they are just facing the consequences of shortcomings in the only the past few days. When you're "ahead," so to speak (like Remy and Myles), a clean slate works against you. When you're "behind" (like Austin and Macura), it works to your benefit. I think the players would understand that and not interpret it as a mixed message. Essentially, it's probably presented as, "You've been great, but that doesn't give you a break if you want playing time and if you want the team to consistently win."

The slate has been wiped clean against heading into the next game, so now they (and the rest of the team) have another chance to respond, without the past few days hampering or helping them. It works both ways; Austin has been busting his ass in practice and then in this past game, but he too has to start over.

If this method is effective in lighting a fire under the team, I think what we're going to see is a diminishing emphasis on effort for starting spots and minutes, because a high level of effort will have become normalized across all players. Consequently, skill and performance will again be used as the primary traits for differentiating between players. The starting lineup will probably return to its original form, expect maybe Reynolds will have surpassed Farr.

[paulxu]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2G8BNgSA3M

[LA Muskie]

While in no way do I intend to bash Mack, I think "wiping the slate clean" is a really dumb idea. As you point out, it effectively punishes two of our hardest workers for the first 1/2 of our season. I think Mack is grasping at straws. But in his defense, I can't really blame him. He had to try something, even if I (and others) disagree with what he is trying.

[XUFan09]

While in no way do I intend to bash Mack, I think "wiping the slate clean" is a really dumb idea. As you point out, it effectively punishes two of our hardest workers for the first 1/2 of our season. I think Mack is grasping at straws. But in his defense, I can't really blame him. He had to try something, even if I (and others) disagree with what he is trying.
Because I don't think it will be a permanent clean slate but more of a two- to three-game thing, it's not much of a punishment.

[LadyMuskie]

The only "mixed messages" are coming from this board. How would you ever know if the coach was sending a mixed message unless he told you what the message was, which he's not going to do. It's all pure speculation and the more you speculate the more the message, whatever it is, gets mixed. Oh what a web we weave.


I think it's fair and not completely out of line for adults, with experience living life, to make some educated guesses as to what may be happening. And even if that's not fair, it's certainly the point of a messageboard to speculate and discuss concerns people have.

I think it's also fair to use quotes from the coach when coming to these conclusions. For example, when Mack is asked if his players are discombobulated by the many changes being made and he answers "maybe", I'd say - drawing from experience and reading within context - that it is entirely possible, even likely, that we have players who are confused by what Mack is trying to do. In other words, the players are "maybe" getting mixed messages as to what they're supposed to do and how they're supposed to do it. Personally, I think it would be better if our coach knew for sure that the players were all clear on what was going on and why. In my opinion, if your message is clear and confident, you'd know for sure that no players were discombobulated.

[bleedXblue]

I think we struggle tomorrow. Considering what's taken place over the last couple weeks. I hope I'm wrong.

[LadyMuskie]

I think we struggle tomorrow. Considering what's taken place over the last couple weeks. I hope I'm wrong.

If we start losing at home to the likes of Marquette, God help us all.

[mid major]

If we start losing at home to the likes of Marquette, God help us all.

Yep. If we start dropping games to Mkt at home...like F Murray Abraham said in Scarface..."pobrecito".

[profson]

What I think is really interesting about this is the notion that Remy was somehow our problem. He didn't seem to be a problem when I was watching. Not at home against Georgetown. Not on the road at Butler. And never -- ever -- did Mack mention anything negative about Remy previously. I'm not saying Chris hasn't identified issues with Remy's performance or effort. I'm just sort of surprised because it seems to have come from out of the blue.

On a similar note, Mack praised Myles for developing into a vocal floor leader. But he also seemed to be in Mack's dog-house Wednesday night (albeit to a lesser extent).

My concern (and again, I will grant you I'm not in the locker room) is that guys are getting mixed messages, and that some of our harder working leaders will feel like they are being made the scapegoats for others' deficiencies. This team is talented, but has some gaping holes. Remy hasn't seemed to have many. And Myles has by and large played above his.

There was a premonition. On the Chris Mack Show on Monday, a caller praised Remy's defense and Mack said he was a good one-on-one defender and in fighting through screens but had to play better system defense off the ball (perhaps he said help defense). It was the first time I remember him criticizing Remy's defense.

[profson]

There was a premonition. On the Chris Mack Show on Monday, a caller praised Remy's defense and Mack said he was a good one-on-one defender and in fighting through screens but had to play better system defense off the ball (perhaps he said help defense). It was the first time I remember him criticizing Remy's defense.

Well, the mystery is solved. Go to www.goxavier.com and access the Mack presser for the Marquette game. At about 7:00+ Mack spells out in detail the shortcomings he sees in Abell's defense. Notwithstanding the dozens of posts here that speculated that it had to do with "effort", that is not the case. Simply, per Mack, he is not playing system defense which on balance hurts the team even though he is an elite defender one-on-one.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Well, the mystery is solved. Go to www.goxavier.com and access the Mack presser for the Marquette game. At about 7:00+ Mack spells out in detail the shortcomings he sees in Abell's defense. Notwithstanding the dozens of posts here that speculated that it had to do with "effort", that is not the case. Simply, per Mack, he is not playing system defense which on balance hurts the team even though he is an elite defender one-on-one.

I'm not sure if its better or worse that its bad defense and not bad effort. I guess we will see going forward.

[Olsingledigit]

There have been a lot of experts commenting, criticizing and otherwise pontificating about this team's recent performances and about the Coaching of one Chris Mack. There has also been quite a bit of commentary comparing Coach Mack to his two predecessors with statements like "we never saw stuff like the Butler game under (Beaknose)or (Desert Raccoon)."

it seems like people on here have quite the short memories or they just refuse to acknowledge differences in overall circumstances between the situations of Beak/Raccoon and CMack. I'm not even going to reference the departure of very good players, not only because of ability, but because of stupidity, that set the program back or the ludicrous NCAA ruling that kept Myles Davis and Jalen Reynolds off the court in 2012-2013. No, it's about the total overall change in circumstance of a significant league upgrade that the previous two Deities never had to deal with.

In CMack's first 3 years, everyone can admit that his results were comparable to his predecessors- 3 NCAA's with 2 Sweet 16's and 2 A10 Championships. With all 3 of our most recent coaches, Xavier had the advantage of recruiting in the A10 because of Cintas Center and won in the A10 with better talent, but even with that, XU could only get, at best 5th or 6th ranked league level talent, not 2nd or 3rd. But the one difference that Mack has had to deal with is the change of leagues upward in last and this year that the other two did not. Consider:

Stat #1: Almost one half of the scholarship players on this present roster (6) committed & signed with Xavier before Xavier was any where near being in a conversation about joining the Big East- that is in 2010, 2011 or 2012. So what, you may say? Well this what. Mack, just as with Beaknose and Raccoon, was recruiting in a pool of players that were available to the 7th - 8th ranked league rather than a pool of players that would be at a level of the 2nd or 3rd ranked league. However now, Xavier is playing schools that have ALWAYS been recruiting at a 2nd/3rd league level. So our older players were recruited in essence to be A10 competitive, not Big East competitive. But, what about Butler you say? Well, they had Brad Stevens leveraging their two final 4's when recruiting, a one off advantage that Mack does not have. Even DePaul with Purnell still had the Big East aura to help them.

Stat #2: Of the 7 players that Xavier has on it's roster that committed/signed since the announcement of Xavier's Big East membership, only Remy Abel has more than 16 games experience. The others are kids, talented kids, but kids who last year were in high school and didn't have to play defense like they do up here. Unlike the previous Xavier classes, they are not getting their feet wet in the 7th ranked league, but the 2nd ranked one. Why should we be surprised if they struggle at times- especially on defense?

Of course critics will point out losses this year to people like Auburn, Long Beach, and DePaul as examples why Mack stinks. Well, my memory is not short, and I remember horrible efforts against average or worse teams under both Toucan (Iowa State, Ball State, Richmond, Dookcane, St. Bonaventure) and Raccoon (Fordham, a bad Tennessee team, a bad Cincinnati team(Cronin's first year), Miami (2 losses), Dookcane & LaSalle). Stinkers happen, and I will criticize coaching moves when they deserve criticism, but let us remember that half this squad was recruited to compete in the A 10 and half are freshman. The ONLY player on this roster that does not fall in either category is Abel.

Am I happy with the effort at Butler last Saturday? No more than I was with the effort at Fordham under Raccoon or at Ball State under Toucan, but I'm willing to let the season play before really being concerned.

Chris Mack is going nowhere soon, unless he, himself generates the move. At least we should give him the benefit of more time in this new league before we damn him to the fiery furnace.

MOR an excellent post. Please fix ost this over on MM too. Well reasoned and well done.

[X-man]

It's fun to speculate based upon what we see and think we know. The problem is we don't know what we don't know. With full knowledge this may all make perfect sense. Or it may not.... There, did that clear things up?

Did you intern for Rumsfeld?

[xu82]

Did you intern for Rumsfeld?

No, of course not.

He interned for me.

[xukeith]

There have been a lot of experts commenting, criticizing and otherwise pontificating about this team's recent performances and about the Coaching of one Chris Mack. There has also been quite a bit of commentary comparing Coach Mack to his two predecessors with statements like "we never saw stuff like the Butler game under (Beaknose)or (Desert Raccoon)."

it seems like people on here have quite the short memories or they just refuse to acknowledge differences in overall circumstances between the situations of Beak/Raccoon and CMack. I'm not even going to reference the departure of very good players, not only because of ability, but because of stupidity, that set the program back or the ludicrous NCAA ruling that kept Myles Davis and Jalen Reynolds off the court in 2012-2013. No, it's about the total overall change in circumstance of a significant league upgrade that the previous two Deities never had to deal with.

In CMack's first 3 years, everyone can admit that his results were comparable to his predecessors- 3 NCAA's with 2 Sweet 16's and 2 A10 Championships. With all 3 of our most recent coaches, Xavier had the advantage of recruiting in the A10 because of Cintas Center and won in the A10 with better talent, but even with that, XU could only get, at best 5th or 6th ranked league level talent, not 2nd or 3rd. But the one difference that Mack has had to deal with is the change of leagues upward in last and this year that the other two did not. Consider:

Stat #1: Almost one half of the scholarship players on this present roster (6) committed & signed with Xavier before Xavier was any where near being in a conversation about joining the Big East- that is in 2010, 2011 or 2012. So what, you may say? Well this what. Mack, just as with Beaknose and Raccoon, was recruiting in a pool of players that were available to the 7th - 8th ranked league rather than a pool of players that would be at a level of the 2nd or 3rd ranked league. However now, Xavier is playing schools that have ALWAYS been recruiting at a 2nd/3rd league level. So our older players were recruited in essence to be A10 competitive, not Big East competitive. But, what about Butler you say? Well, they had Brad Stevens leveraging their two final 4's when recruiting, a one off advantage that Mack does not have. Even DePaul with Purnell still had the Big East aura to help them.

Stat #2: Of the 7 players that Xavier has on it's roster that committed/signed since the announcement of Xavier's Big East membership, only Remy Abel has more than 16 games experience. The others are kids, talented kids, but kids who last year were in high school and didn't have to play defense like they do up here. Unlike the previous Xavier classes, they are not getting their feet wet in the 7th ranked league, but the 2nd ranked one. Why should we be surprised if they struggle at times- especially on defense?

Of course critics will point out losses this year to people like Auburn, Long Beach, and DePaul as examples why Mack stinks. Well, my memory is not short, and I remember horrible efforts against average or worse teams under both Toucan (Iowa State, Ball State, Richmond, Dookcane, St. Bonaventure) and Raccoon (Fordham, a bad Tennessee team, a bad Cincinnati team(Cronin's first year), Miami (2 losses), Dookcane & LaSalle). Stinkers happen, and I will criticize coaching moves when they deserve criticism, but let us remember that half this squad was recruited to compete in the A 10 and half are freshman. The ONLY player on this roster that does not fall in either category is Abel.

Am I happy with the effort at Butler last Saturday? No more than I was with the effort at Fordham under Raccoon or at Ball State under Toucan, but I'm willing to let the season play before really being concerned.

Chris Mack is going nowhere soon, unless he, himself generates the move. At least we should give him the benefit of more time in this new league before we damn him to the fiery furnace.
VCU, Creighton and Wichita State are a lot better than many BE and top schools with "lesser" recruits.

[DC Muskie]

VCU, Creighton and Wichita State are a lot better than many BE and top schools with "lesser" recruits.

Also the leading scorer in this league first signed with Dayton.

Dayton.

[wkrq59]

There was a premonition. On the Chris Mack Show on Monday, a caller praised Remy's defense and Mack said he was a good one-on-one defender and in fighting through screens but had to play better system defense off the ball (perhaps he said help defense). It was the first time I remember him criticizing Remy's defense.

Please include the folo to that first quote from Chris Mack . He added that on-ball defense, Remy has no peer, none better. But team wise, not so much and he cited examples in Butler game. He also said our guards just do not rebound or won't rebound. I think there was an improvement today.

[Masterofreality]

I think we struggle tomorrow. Considering what's taken place over the last couple weeks. I hope I'm wrong.


There was a premonition. On the Chris Mack Show on Monday, a caller praised Remy's defense and Mack said he was a good one-on-one defender and in fighting through screens but had to play better system defense off the ball (perhaps he said help defense). It was the first time I remember him criticizing Remy's defense.


Well, the mystery is solved. Go to www.goxavier.com and access the Mack presser for the Marquette game. At about 7:00+ Mack spells out in detail the shortcomings he sees in Abell's defense. Notwithstanding the dozens of posts here that speculated that it had to do with "effort", that is not the case. Simply, per Mack, he is not playing system defense which on balance hurts the team even though he is an elite defender one-on-one.

I'll tell you what ought to be solved after today, that this team is a helluva lot worse with Remy Abell NOT on the floor. Doesn't start and only plays spotty in the first half- X down by 9. Plays almost all the second half. Plays Big, X wins. I really didn't see any difference in his "team, help defense" but I sure as hell saw a difference in the scoreboard.

I think a difference in the scoreboard is what really counts doesn't it? If so, let's see more Remy Abell.

[danaandvictory]

Instead of lamenting Remy's supposed inability to adhere to the team defensive concept (which is not working very well), perhaps there's a way to integrate Remy's particular set of skills in a way that optimizes them? Other than that, hashtag teamMOR

[DC Muskie]

Instead of lamenting Remy's supposed inability to adhere to the team defensive concept (which is not working very well), perhaps there's a way to integrate Remy's particular set of skills in a way that optimizes them? Other than that, hashtag teamMOR

I would be in favor of that. Let's keep the guy in the lineup.

#TeamMOR

[Masterofreality]

Instead of lamenting Remy's supposed inability to adhere to the team defensive concept (which is not working very well), perhaps there's a way to integrate Remy's particular set of skills in a way that optimizes them? Other than that, hashtag teamMOR

Actually, it wasn't a lament at all, it was actually a pointing out that maybe Remy's strength is much greater than his alleged weakness and someone other than he should adjust to what he does.. and the scoreboard proved it. Hail Remy Abell!

[waggy]

I think Mack should play who he wants, and piss on the internet jockeys. It's Mack that really has to live with the results.

[LA Muskie]

I think Mack should play who he wants, and piss on the internet jockeys. It's Mack that really has to live with the results.

I think he will regardless. But it wouldn't be much of a message board if we couldn't discuss and debate his choices.

[waggy]

I think he will regardless. But it wouldn't be much of a message board if we couldn't discuss and debate his choices.


We're good.

I think.

[xu82]

I think he will regardless. But it wouldn't be much of a message board if we couldn't discuss and debate his choices.

Really? So no one else gets PM's from his asking for lineup advice? (Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it...)

[DC Muskie]

I'm not as annoying in person as I am here.

Still pretty annoying, but I need message boards to really get my game in a groove.

[xu82]

I'm not as annoying in person as I am here.

Still pretty annoying, but I need message boards to really get my game in a groove.

Don't be so hard on yourself. It takes some of the fun out of it for those of us who want to do that for you! :laugh:

(I clearly have too much time on my hands...)

[DC Muskie]

Don't be so hard on yourself. It takes some of the fun out of it for those of us who want to do that for you! :laugh:

(I clearly have too much time on my hands...)

I just want to be sure no one tries to get rid of message boards.

[xu82]

I just want to be sure no one tries to get rid of message boards.

I'm with you there! Then I'd have to get a life! Wait.... no, I'm still with you.

[vee4xu]

I'm not as annoying in person as I am here.

Still pretty annoying, but I need message boards to really get my game in a groove.

It's been a while, but when I met DC in person, I say he is very nice in person.

[Bmuskie]

The reality is that Chris Mack's teams are now 13-30 away from Cintas in the last 3 seasons. No excuses! If X is trying to win championships then that sort of record can not exist. This is not a basketball program with a championship mindset.

[XUMIOH12]

I've been waiting all season for Mack to consistently use a zone defense and he finally did it today. Not sure why it took him so long, but it worked well tonight in the 2nd half. Lets see if he continues to utilize it, because I think it helps us when our relatively un athletic guards don't have to actually stay man to man with better athletes. I would at least like to see him switch between man and zone frequently from here on out.

[XUFan09]

I've been waiting all season for Mack to consistently use a zone defense and he finally did it today. Not sure why it took him so long, but it worked well tonight in the 2nd half. Lets see if he continues to utilize it, because I think it helps us when our relatively un athletic guards don't have to actually stay man to man with better athletes. I would at least like to see him switch between man and zone frequently from here on out.

Without checking, I'd still have to guess that this is easily the worst shooting team that Xavier faces this year. They shoot 30.9% as a team from 3 and they don't have a single player who is a good shooter.

[Juice]

Without checking, I'd still have to guess that this is easily the worst shooting team that Xavier faces this year. They shoot 30.9% as a team from 3 and they don't have a single player who is a good shooter.

White people love when their team runs zone defense

[XUFan09]

White people love when their team runs zone defense

This season when Xavier has run a zone, I could always point out the spots on the court where a player could put up an open three after some offensive motion. If I as a fan can see it live, an opposing coach looking over game tape can really see it and will find a way to exploit it. This was a new style of zone that Mack threw out there against Providence, but now that he's used it, there is game tape available. Plus, most of the other coaches in the conference have multiple good shooters, unlike the Friars.

[GoMuskies]

This season when Xavier has run a zone, I could always point out the spots on the court where a player could put up an open three after some offensive motion.

That's not exactly different from Xavier ' s man to man, though. Getting open looks at 3s has not been an issue for Xavier ' s opponents this year.

[XUFan09]

That's not exactly different from Xavier ' s man to man, though. Getting open looks at 3s has not been an issue for Xavier ' s opponents this year.

The difference is that usually the open looks in the packline are due to a failure to execute, often because a perimeter defender was overhelping (e.g. not immediately moving closer to his man as the ball rotates or double-teaming the post when he should just be close to the post player). Those spots in the zone, however, are the geographic weak points of the defense.

Edit: Now, I'm okay with those weak spots when you're facing poor shooters. Let a 29% three-point shooter take that shot. But a team like Seton Hall, who collectively isn't even that efficient from deep, will make a team regret zone if it's for an extended period of time. There's also only a finite amount of time to practice defense, and any good defense needs a good portion of the season to get down pat under normal conditions. In current conditions, with so many newer faces, that apparently is taking even longer.

[GoMuskies]

That's a distinction without a difference.

[XUFan09]

That's a distinction without a difference.

One is defenders messing up, the other is a characteristic of the defense itself.

[GoMuskies]

One is defenders messing up, the other is a characteristic of the defense itself.

The results are the same, and we're 20 games into the season. There's no difference.

[chico]

White people love when their team runs zone defense

Bob Knight would beg to differ.

I like the zone - when the situation calls for it. Last night the situation called for it, and it helped getting Xavier back in the game. I think sometimes the defense is a function of who you have on the floor. It's been beaten into the ground how bad a man defender Macura is, but he was pretty effective playing the top of the zone.

I like mixing defenses. Keep your opponent off guard.

[Emp]

Agree, Chico.

The Mack haters can eat some big crow, that was a good coaching job last night. The schemes against the zone were inspired. Those who think Mack cant do Xs and Os are just flat wrong.

The ball has to go in the basket to win, but our team played its heart out and used their heads when the 3s weren't falling.

[LA Muskie]

I'm no Mack hater by any stretch, but when our two best "coaching performances" each involve at least one abjectly horrible half, one of which we couldn't completely climb out of, we're in trouble.

[LadyMuskie]

Agree, Chico.

The Mack haters can eat some big crow, that was a good coaching job last night. The schemes against the zone were inspired. Those who think Mack cant do Xs and Os are just flat wrong.

The ball has to go in the basket to win, but our team played its heart out and used their heads when the 3s weren't falling.

Did you not watch the entire game? The team played well in the second half of the second half - particularly in the last three minutes of regulation. The first half, not unlike the Marquette game at home, was not good. It was bad coaching. Bad playing. Just bad.

It was a good coaching job for a portion of the game. Is it too much to ask that we get great coaching for an entire game?

[XU 87]

I'm not sure I would call it bad coaching in the first half. Our best two big guys were in foul trouble and the team missed every three they shot, some with some very open looks.

If you want to discuss keeping both Jalen and Stainbrook on the bench in the first half due to 2 fouls, I am open to that discussion. It doesn't do much good to save a player for the second half when you're close to being out of the game in the first half.

[bleedXblue]

I'm no Mack hater by any stretch, but when our two best "coaching performances" each involve at least one abjectly horrible half, one of which we couldn't completely climb out of, we're in trouble.

No kidding. That first half offense was dreadful. And one could argue going to the zone earlier would have resulted in a W. I think every poster on this board has been calling for more zone out of this team for the last 10 games. Now it's good coaching?

[GoMuskies]

The Mack haters can eat some big crow, that was a good coaching job last night.

I'm no Mack hater....but you expect them to eat crow after a loss in an imminently winnable game?!? I'm thinking not.

[NY44]

I've been trying to stay out of this, but I have to ask: Why is Mack's coaching a hot topic just now? Mack has never been a good in-game coach. He has been just as good as the sum of his players. Yes, it's head scratching that he has a slow big man like Stainbrook hedge on screens beyond the arc, but that's been happening since Kenny Frease. Think about the Kansas State game in 2010, one of the more memorable of his career. It wasn't memorable because it was well coached, it was because great players like Jordan Crawford and the man formerly know as Terrell Holloway took and nailed ill-advised 3 pointers. But I'll be damned if the man can't recruit, and that's exactly what he's good at, and that's exactly why we keep him around. Having Mack as a great recruiter and a mediocre strategist has definitely worked for us in the past. The difference here is that he lost some of his best recruits and players to unfortunate decisions/mistakes, and we're paying the price.

[bleedXblue]

I've been trying to stay out of this, but I have to ask: Why is Mack's coaching a hot topic just now? Mack has never been a good in-game coach. He has been just as good as the sum of his players. Yes, it's head scratching that he has a slow big man like Stainbrook hedge on screens beyond the arc, but that's been happening since Kenny Frease. Think about the Kansas State game in 2010, one of the more memorable of his career. It wasn't memorable because it was well coached, it was because great players like Jordan Crawford and the man formerly know as Terrell Holloway took and nailed ill-advised 3 pointers. But I'll be damned if the man can't recruit, and that's exactly what he's good at, and that's exactly why we keep him around. Having Mack as a great recruiter and a mediocre strategist has definitely worked for us in the past. The difference here is that he lost some of his best recruits and players to unfortunate decisions/mistakes, and we're paying the price.

I was thinking today that this team would likely be 14-5 or 15-4 with Semaj....or even better.

[Masterofreality]

I'm no Mack hater....but you expect them to eat crow after a loss in an imminently winnable game?!? I'm thinking not.

This. I really have nothing else to say.

[gladdenguy]

I'm no Mack hater....but you expect them to eat crow after a loss in an imminently winnable game?!? I'm thinking not.

Public reps. Chris Mack deserves nothing positive from his coaching (or lack thereof) this year.

Win a road game coach....oh thats right....you beat a pathetic Missouri team for your only road win of the season. Keep up the great work!!!! You almost beat Providence (who played terrible)!!!!!!

[paulxu]

Sometimes I feel like the people who ride the same old horse, over and over again, about what Chris Mack has (or has not) done are just trying to set themselves up to say "I told you so" if we miss the tournament.
I would expect them to fall back on the old luck factor if we make the tournament and that Mack had nothing to do with it.
Whatever....

[boozehound]

Sometimes I feel like the people who ride the same old horse, over and over again, about what Chris Mack has (or has not) done are just trying to set themselves up to say "I told you so" if we miss the tournament.
I would expect them to fall back on the old luck factor if we make the tournament and that Mack had nothing to do with it.
Whatever....

I think they are just frustrated, and most of them would love to be able to say nothing but positive things about Mack. It would mean we are winning. I will agree that there are a (very small) group of fans that will complain no matter what, but I don't think that represents all that many of the 'Mack haters'.

[chico]

Public reps. Chris Mack deserves nothing positive from his coaching (or lack thereof) this year.

Win a road game coach....oh thats right....you beat a pathetic Missouri team for your only road win of the season. Keep up the great work!!!! You almost beat Providence (who played terrible)!!!!!!

I wouldn't go that far. Mack definitely needs to up his game, but at least there was a sign last night that he's willing to change things up if they aren't working (even if it was later than some of us would've liked).

Each coach we had since Staak has either improved the program or at the very kept the status quo. Admittedly it gets harder and harder to keep improving, but if you were to look at Mack's tenure, it's safe to say we have taken a step back. Now I know a lot has happened that was out of his control and/or just plain bad luck, but at some point you have to get past it. Even if road games are harder now than they were, they are still winnable games.

I just don't have the same confidence in Mack that I had in the last 5 coaches we've had here. It's hard to put a finger on it - maybe it's the in-game coaching, maybe it's the type of player we recruit now, maybe it's that he's going up against better coaches in a better conference. Whatever the reason, the feeling's there.

It was good to see the zone come out last night. I think we need some creative thinking and more playing to what the capabilities of the team are, not what the system is.

[drudy23]

If you directly asked Mack "Have the last 3 seasons been good enough", and he could only answer it with a Yes or No (and not use coach speak to dodge it)....could he really answer YES?

Would anyone on this board answer YES?

Yet that shouldn't matter in our opinion of him?

[gladdenguy]

I would love to praise Mack but the last 3 years have been terrible. No way can he be satisfied.
And I will praise Mack if he turns around this terrible season.
But from the research on the court through 19 games this team isn't getting better. This team loses close games. And this team has no balls. Even Mack himself says they have a long way to go.
You know what, coach, so do you.

And board posters like "xuwin"who neg rep me because it's getting old......yeah losing away from Cintas gets old too.
Put me on ignore. I'm not gonna wear blue colored glasses and collect moral victories and signs of positivity when they continue to lose games and look terrible doing it.

[DC Muskie]

16-21. I keep repeating it. It's really bad.

We had a chance to turn that record around in November, it arguably the easiest preseason tournament we have ever been in and we didn't come close to winning.

Mack has to figure out a way to steal some road wins and we must do better in tournament neutral site games. We cannot be this bad on a regular basis. To me this is the great equalizer when talking about Matta/Miller/Mack records then trying to dispute it by suggesting the difference in conferences is too great.

[paulxu]

If you directly asked Mack "Have the last 3 seasons been good enough", and he could only answer it with a Yes or No (and not use coach speak to dodge it)....could he really answer YES?

Would anyone on this board answer YES?

Yet that shouldn't matter in our opinion of him?

Absent 3 straight national championships, the answer should always be "no." I'm assuming that's every BE coach's goal.
I have no problem with opinions that anyone holds about Mack. That's their prerogative on a board...always.
Now, reading the same old lines over, and over, and over and over does get a little tiresome.
We all know what the record is. I'm not sure repeating it ad nauseam is going to change it.

[drudy23]

Absent 3 straight national championships, the answer should always be "no."
.

That's crap and you know it.

[paulxu]

That's crap and you know it.

OK, I'll give. For that question I'm sure Mack isn't happy. I'm sure the team isn't performing like he, or they, hoped at this point.

But what keeps getting me is the constant drumming of we have only made the NCAA's once in three years...totally giving up on this year already to make that statement. (Might not have been you particularly saying that). We haven't finished this year. We've been 8 out of the last 9. Only Villanova has that record with us. I'm willing to wait a while before I give up on the season, or team, or coach.