psc2009 Posted April 21, 2011 Report Posted April 21, 2011 Rob Murphy, who is currently at Syracuse, is going to take over the Eagles. He's got strong local ties, has coached a fair share of NBA talent and has learned from a legend of a coach in Jim Boeheim. IMHO, it's a good hire for Eastern Michigan. They could use one. http://themacdaily.com/index.php?news&nid=669 Quote
GP1 Posted April 21, 2011 Report Posted April 21, 2011 Feel free to agree or disagree, but immediate success in MAC basketball seems much more difficult than basketball. The same schools have been good now for a while in basketball and it seems so nobody has been able to break into the good old boys club. I don't know why that is. Basketball, on the surface with such a small number of players, would be a good sport to get good at immediately. Just a thought... Quote
Blue & Gold Posted April 21, 2011 Report Posted April 21, 2011 ...with such a small number of players, would be a good sport to get good at immediately. I agree. I've always thought that I would much rather be charged with turning a basketball program around rather than football. Get three stud players and you've got a good basketball squad. EMU, with their beautiful arena and proximity to Detroit's basketball talent really should, IMHO, be more of a force than they are. Quote
Zip Watcher Posted April 21, 2011 Report Posted April 21, 2011 Fewer players on the roster means you need fewer players. A program still has to create a culture of winning. Just having 3 or 4 new guys who are more athletic or taller than the guys from last year's club doesn't turn a hoops program. You bring 3 or 4 new guys into a situation where the team isn't mentally tough .. doesn't know how to finish games .. doesn't know how to win .. then you'll have 3 or 4 new guys in the same old situation. Getting the 3 or 4 new guys might be the easiest part of a new coach's job. Coach Murphy has his work cut out for himself. This isn't a quick fix. Go Zips! Quote
Captain Kangaroo Posted April 21, 2011 Report Posted April 21, 2011 Hipsher had (most seasons) a lot of individual talent (Bosley, Ball, Andrick, Phillips, Hollingsworth, Tarver etc.). But he couldn't win. Managing egos, keeping kids out of jail, motivating... it takes a lot more than 3-4 good basketball players to build a winning program. To improve EMU to "mediocre" isn't too difficult. Simply get some coachable, semi-talented kids who will stick with the program for the duration. If this coach is any good, and he uses that plan, he'll have them winning 15-17 games within 3 years. The tough part is surpassing "mediocre." Winning 20+. That's coaching. Quote
Zipmeister Posted April 21, 2011 Report Posted April 21, 2011 Feel free to agree or disagree, but immediate success in MAC basketball seems much more difficult than basketball. The same schools have been good now for a while in basketball and it seems so nobody has been able to break into the good old boys club. I don't know why that is. Basketball, on the surface with such a small number of players, would be a good sport to get good at immediately. Just a thought... I can't argue with that. Quote
GP1 Posted April 21, 2011 Report Posted April 21, 2011 Feel free to agree or disagree, but immediate success in MAC basketball seems much more difficult than basketball. The same schools have been good now for a while in basketball and it seems so nobody has been able to break into the good old boys club. I don't know why that is. Basketball, on the surface with such a small number of players, would be a good sport to get good at immediately. Just a thought... I can't argue with that. OOPS! I mean basketball on the surface would seem easier than football, but that isn't the case. ZW makes a good point about a culture of winning. Akron and Can't come to mind when I think about a culture of winning in basketball. OU could be thrown in there as well. These schools tend to win a lot and have been at least good for a while now. Looking at football, I really can't think of a program that has the same culture of winning. Most football teams that get good have good players in all the right places so they win then they fall away when those players leave (CMU). Marshall was the last school in the MAC that one could say had a culture of winning. CMU was good then they went away. Miamioh is good now and when these good classes leave, will they still be good. I would respectfully agree and disagree with CK. I agree that Akron is a good example of a stable, good coach keeping a team good. Can't is not a good example of that. They continue to have a good program while coaches change, so the culture has to take over at that point. Getting back to the original point, on the surface, it would seem more difficult to get good at football because so many players play during a game. In fact, you can have a good basketball team with 3 good players with some average players around them. It only takes 4-5 good players in the right positions to be good at football, so the number of players you need isn't greatly different. As long as the rest of the guys are at least average, you can win in football with only 4-5 good players. Everyone else does it, why can't we? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.