That's close, but not quite accurate. I know because after seeing this schedule I looked up the worst ones we had in previous regimes.

In Whitesell's last year (2010-11) we did indeed start off 7-0, but we didn't play any non-D1s. Also, we beat Indiana State (the only tournament team from the MVC that year), and won road games at Western Michigan (RPI 177) and San Francisco (RPI 118). The other games in that 7-0 start may have been cheapies, but those were three decent, admirable wins. At 7-0, we then faced eventual national runner-up Butler, and lost 65-63.

It was the year before Whitesell's last when we had two non-D1s (St. Ambrose and St. Francis), but we offset those bad games with home wins against Canisius (RPI 195), Western Michigan (148), and San Francisco (210), plus road wins at Bradley (101) and Holy Cross (270) and loss at Kansas State (6).

We gave Whitesell grief for a lot of things and it's turning out to be "be careful what you wish for."

It's looking as if Whitesell's only glaring deficiency was his recruiting.

_________________
Cigarboy sucks!

Go--

This is the way it's been going for a quarter century now, through Will Rey, Ken Burmeister, Larry Farmer, Jim Whitesell, and Porter Moser. One guy shows a weakness in an area, we dismiss him and overcorrect for his weakness with the next guy-- often to the catastrophic detriment of the one thing the previous guy did right.

Farmer could recruit like mad, but couldn't coach his way out of a wet paper bag. So we get Whitesell, who could coach very well but couldn't (or wouldn't-- for fear of getting players who might become ineligible) recruit. So we get Moser, who's great on making the sale but pretty lousy on the back end (in game coaching, keeping players, scheduling, etc.).

It seems to me the only thing that mitigates or arrests this cycle is having (and keeping) a really good top assistant who is excellent at the things the head coach can't do well. We had that for a few years here and there in this cycle-- Famer couldn't coach, but for two years we had Scott Spinelli, during which time Loyola was 32-29 overall and 18-14 in conference. For comparison, during the rest of the Farmer regime, Loyola was 39-73 overall and 17-41 in conference-- with a lot of the same quality players.

In Whitesell's first years, we had players recruited by Farmer, along with a few brought in by top assistant Howard Moore. In Whitesell's first three seasons we went 53-39, and 26-22 in conference; during the rest of his tenure we were 56-68 overall, 24-48 in conference games. And nearly everyone who paid attention acknowledged that we had mediocre (or worse) talent during Whitesell's last years, who managed to perform marginally better than their physical skills would suggest.

My theory is this: It is not enough to pay competitively for the head coaching job; we need to have enough money and incentives in the total coaching budget to keep and retain a top assistant who complements the head coach by doing the things the head coach is weak at doing. We've seen that at the pro level with someone like Tex Winter with Phil Jackson, and we've seen it at Loyola for short periods with Scott Spinelli and Howard Moore. We've seen it happen at other schools in our conference-- Barry Collier and Matta/Lickliter/Stevens at Butler is an example. Farmer as a top assistant is another example. If you try to find this "package" all in one person-- a head coach with a revolving door of low-paid assistants, they're probably not going to be successful, or not come to Loyola-- they're going to be hired at (or hired away to) a bigger, better paying venue. If Loyola could keep an effective tandem (or better yet, trio) in place for five years, that's how we get our program back to prominence.

63,

damn accurate.

I've seen that trend but what I was trying to say is that we gave Whitesell a hard time for some of his coaching techniques too. At the time, it seemed deserved but, in retrospect, it wasn't.

The answer, short of going the College of Coaches route, is to try to go young. I said this, privately, to ahunte. If I had to target someone today to coach Loyola, I would look at Jerrance Howard. He's a guy that has played at a high level (U of I), is currently an assistant at a high level (U of I), is a "local" (Peoria) and likely has a line to the CPS (from his time coaching at U of I). This is a guy that would probably like the opportunity to be a head coach and make a record of his own. We aren't going to pull some of these top assistants that have been in place for a long time (see during last hiring: Wojo). Those guys don't want to come here because of the lack of success/competition for attention/money. As an assistant, he has been making $190k. Now, I can't speak to what Porter makes here but I know that Howard Moore makes $300k at UIC. I have to imagine that it is somewhat similar.

The assistant route, while good, isn't sustainable. Our top assistants make, what, $70k? There was a recent listing for an assistant at $40k. Who would want to be here for that long at that rate?

My advice: Go young. Deal with the growing pains. It's much better than having these also-rans come in and destroy anything that is somewhat good.

_________________
Cigarboy sucks!

This isn't a College of Coaches proposal, really. But it would require hiring a guy with the right ego capable of acknowledging weakness in some areas and deferring to super-talented "experts" under him. That's difficult to do, but the best coaches are the ones who are able to do it. A lot of coaches hire assistants as yes men with identical skill sets and philosophies. I suspect we're looking at that now with our current staff, all hired at the same time when all three assistants left at once. The same drive and ego that causes people to aspire to head coaching makes it difficult to resist shutting out other ideas and philosophies or yielding to the expertise of others.

In the case of Spinelli, who I talked to in depth at the time of his departure, the salary was definitely the thing. He left Loyola for Nebraska to work under Collier, and probably more than doubled his salary. You also have to remember that a "competitive" assistant salary doesn't go nearly as far in Chicago as it does in Des Moines, Peoria, or Wichita.

Believe it or not, there are some people who wouldn't mind being an assistant for a long haul, and might not even be interested in a head coaching job. Maybe some have already tried head coaching and didn't like it at all, or realized they weren't cut out for it. Since leaving Loyola, Farmer has been an assistant at Hawaii, Western Michigan, NC State, and back to Western Michigan. Spinelli has been a top assistant at Nebraska, Wichita State, Texas A&M, and Maryland, never taking a head coaching job (although he had interest in the Loyola position during the Whitesell hiring). Tex Winter was another example.

If you go into the head coaching hiring process with this philosophy clearly understood, I think it's possible to create this dynamic. Maybe at first you take the top assistant hiring process out from the responsibility of the head coach. Maybe you give the top assistant something like half of what the head coach makes-- with a clear understanding of what their responsibilities are. Take a look at the people on the bench at St. Louis under Majerus-- Moser, Whitesell, and Jim Crews. Now they have Calbert Cheaney and Jim Platt, a former head coach.

That and Hicks' injury really derailed that season. It might not have been as extreme as this, but Whitesell was definitely scheduling for his job.

Also, when it comes to a coach, it's really difficult to find the right guy. Maybe it's a young guy. Maybe it's a retread who figures it out the first time around. But I think LU needs a combination of both 63 and Go's plans.

A younger coach will allow you to lowball the opening contract so to speak, and you'll only shell out the big bucks until they've done something remarkable (think Smart and Stevens at VCU and Butler. Neither got a big contract extension until they took their teams to the Final 4 which warrants and more importantly brings in the money for the university to make a raise possible). It also opens up the budget a little to a.) splurge more on assistants that plug in holes and b.) be able to keep them for a while longer unless a really big time assistant job opens and blows them away. And if the HC leaves (like Butler), there's somebody waiting in house.

PM needed to do this. Gardner and Gates were great recruiters (already PM's strength), but they had virtually no in-game coaching experience and were looking to climb the ladder. It was obvious they were gonna take the next best even marginal step up job. They did a good job, but they didn't really stay long enough to make a tangible difference to improve the program in the long run. Doyle was a huge get for Gates, but one player is not cutting it for us.

Please never hire Spinelli. I know the guy is known as a recruiter, but he's one shady character. He's interviewed or expressed interest in a handful of HC positions and been turned away. Turgeon brought him on to help boost recruiting here but I know most of the fan base was never big on him. I know people close to the program and they were happy to see him go. Spin I think would be risky for anyone to take on.

But that begs the question as to what do you pay assistants at Loyola? I know when Spin was hired here he was probably making a little over 100k. Before Coach Jans left for Bowling Green, I think he was making close to 200k. Not sure what the current guys make but I'd guess around 150k. They deserve more though if you ask me.

_________________
The Roundhouse

I felt it was a shame that Rick Malnati left. After a long successful high school career I felt he could be a longtime top assistant coach for us. Knew Div. 1 basketball since he played for Bradley.