All the talk about a lack of success in men's basketball led me to think about two questions:

* Last year the team overachieved. Was that the coach or was it the players?
This year the team underachieved. Was that the coach or was it the players?
If it was the coach then why are some concluding that he is not the right man for the job.
Seems to me if he can drive the team to overachieve at 24-13 he should be able to do it again.
This year we did blow some leads but also lost three games by a combined five points. We were blown out at New Mexico and in Wichita. 8 points would have given us three more wins. I think there would not be this weeping and gnashing of teeth if three losses had become three wins.
Seems to me if you get rid of the coach, you just have to start all over again.

What shocks me most though is how some, not all, just a few mind you turn on a dime at the first downturn and adversity and conclude Porter should be dumped. Be careful for what you wish for.

* So what is the answer if it is not the coach?
Is it the resources? I THINK IT IS. Far too often we ask our coaches to do the impossible with almost nothing. Three years ago, men's basketball did not charter to any games. Now they have six in their budget. Good but not great. As far as I am concerned they should charter everywhere the distance is more than 250 miles.
This year Porter was allowed to go overseas to recruit but that budget is limited and there are trade offs. You can spend money on charters AND recruiting nd radio. We had a great volleyball coach who really wanted to stay at Loyola but it was too little too late with a money offer. Two years ago when Grace left, we were without an athletic director for eight months. During that vacuum there was zero support for men's basketball and it was the politics that kept a key recruit or two from getting in and we would have had our BIGS. We were that close. Just one courageous yes instead of gutless no. You cannot blame the coach for that. He has opened channels that for a long time were specifically directed as closed.

Well there really is an answer if it is resources. My guess is if Loyola wanted to win badly it could do so. There is a rich donor base to market to.

If you look south at the Graduate School of Business, you see a rich vibrant organization that has no problem raising money. Loyola has some rich alums who give and have buildings named after them. If you give $5000 to the new business school you can have your name on a stair. Yes, one stair.That is the minimum contribution There are lots of giving opportunities.
They have a great scholarship program for the MBA students with a matching contribution by a fund. And as an alum you can pledge a scholarship over five years. My wife and I have and the funds are matched.
Here's the kicker. Most of the GSB alums never attend a basketball game. But they open their wallets to the Business school because they are asked and recruited to. And it is a well done professional approach to asking you to give. Not some phone call or email or some lame announcement to join the Varsity Club. It is a real reach out and it is not high pressure.
It seems that there is a rich treasure trove of untapped resources that need to be redirected in part to athletics. But I believe the politics of a dysfunctional organization at the very top ABOVE THE ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT is either ignorant of or does not care about athletics which is really sad AND SHAMEFUL. As alums we deserve better. My MBA at Loyola opened up a lot of unique opportunities. If the GSB were as neglected as athletics, that degree would be worth less than a hamburger wrapper.
Two years ago a five year $500 million fund drive was closed out 14 months early at $540 million. GSB events are well attended and usually sold out. The Colin Powell dinner was at $750 a seat. And it was a great event.
So somehow someone has got to get this rich treasure trove to look north. That is the key to the resources. The resources are there.
And with the right resources for marketing, radio, promotion, corporate sponsors, athletics with all of the advantages cited would take off. There is a way, Is there a will?
Unfortunately, while my head is with the Graduate School of Business, my heart is with athletics and basketball and volleyball. But there does come a time when maybe it is best to just walk away from a toxic dysfunctional situation. I trust Steve Watson and Porter Moser. They are good people but they are fighting a long tradition of mediocrity. Like the Cubs for so long, Loyola deserves to be where it is.It has earned that L for loser reputation. I am not there on the action of walking away yet but the thought has crossed my mind and that is how it starts.
Porter may not be the answer but let me say, he is not the problem. He has done much with very little and without even the most basic elements of support he has stood alone. He is a good man and represents the university well. Steve Watson is a breath of fresh air and is very astute at organizational politics. He gives me hope.
While I respect the opinions of all who write on the board, to me it is a sad commentary that many do not know the real story and jump up and down in a disappointing season demanding a change. Maybe the change that should be made is a phone call or reach out to the Athletic Director with a check and a question of what can you do to help.

I can't speak to much of this, but I can say that the other 9 fan bases in the MVC have no faith in Moser ever being more than a middle of the pack coach and that's on his best years. His history at ISU sticks in the minds of everyone here. I was hopeful that maybe he learned a few things about coaching since then but I'm not convinced he has.

I want you guys to succeed. Personally, I think you'd be better off with someone else.

_________________
The Roundhouse

Great post!

Two things(as I ask the question Is the university in or out?) that give me hope are the two new hires. 1. To hire an academic adviser seems to be a solution to a problem which is always a good thing( if indeed the Marlin Jones issue was an Academic Adviser issue) . 2. The new Director of Marketing who has two specific directives a) increase the fan experience and b) raise revenue and also it seems to be a solution to a recognized problem.
So in the large picture someone is looking at the problem, recognizing solutions and acting in a direction that says we want success. I also like the fact that they publicly shared the task of the new Director of Marketing. It also tells me that they have not shut the door yet and are still in the process of trying to improve.And maybe the Director of Marketing will be going after that treasure trove 25 speaks of.

Well, with all due respect to 25yearstreak, I disagree. Those who are suggesting it may be time to replace Porter are not forgetting last year. It was one of the most exciting in my sports watching history...at any level, college or professional. Before last year, I was positive Porter needed to go. I saw WAY too many close games slip away. During the 13-14 campaign, I felt a good game coach could've got us 3-5 more victories. How many 10+ point leads did we blow? Sure that happens in bball, but we won almost none of them. True, last year temporarily changed my mind, but now I realize the real Rambler program (whether Porter's fault or not) is what I have seen for the last 10 years, except for last season. Porter now has had 4 out of 5 disappointing years, in my opinion (I also realize he was saddled with a horrible roster when he got here). Yes, we were in a different conference, but Whitesell, Farmer and Burmeister all had better conference records than Porter. Statistically, we are back in the '90's Will Rey era. As far as the idea that if we fire Porter we may take a step, back...Retaining someone because it might get worse is never a good idea. I have 75 people who work for me and I never worry that letting someone go may mean we can't find someone better. It's a bad philosophy. I SO wish Porter had worked out. He is such a great guy and I really like him being the front man for this University. I also like the type of young men he recruits. But, I also want WINS. Lastly, I actually do agree that nothing will change until this University hires a President committed to athletics, gives Steve Watson the tools he needs and moves (insert joke) Tom Kelly out of the way.

Sam-Bam, I could NOT have said it better--Exactly my sentiments--every word. It is SO obvious --at least to me, we can and MUST win--but we need improvement all down the line from President to the last guy on the bench--
AS you say, iot is ALL about wins. If we win , Fans will come out. If we win. that will force the Media to take notice--After all, our local combination of teams is awful--EG, If it were not for St John's , DePewl would be LAST in the MIGHTY Big Least !!