It's common knowledge that John Blake's recruiting played a role in the 2000 national championship team. Most of the crucial skill position guys like Heupel, Q, etc were brought in by the new staff, so I certainly wouldn't say he's responsible for 80-90% of the roster like Moser with ISU, but he gets his due for guys like Calmus, TRRW, Woolfolk, and McDougle.
32-31 (guess what that is)
- Thread starter hoopsaustin
- Start date
It's common knowledge that John Blake's recruiting played a role in the 2000 national championship team. Most of the crucial skill position guys like Heupel, Q, etc were brought in by the new staff, so I certainly wouldn't say he's responsible for 80-90% of the roster like Moser with ISU, but he gets his due for guys like Calmus, TRRW, Woolfolk, and McDougle.
I do understand your point and your correlation, Eielson. Moser definitely left ISU with more talent than he inherited, but his tenure there was still a failure. Some here like to root against FACTS, but his success at Loyola was a major success based on what that school had accomplished in the 45 years prior to his arrival. As such, I would go with that argument rather than what he did at ISU. Just going with facts, Moser had more 20 win seasons at Loyola from 2018 - 2021 than the school had between 1967-2011. Some here will somehow try to interpret that fact in a negative light (and badly lose their argument). The BOTTOM LINE, though, and I hope you agree, is that Moser needs to win next year or he's not going to see a fourth season.
skyvue
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 8,317
- Reaction score
- 697
It's interesting that Moser gets credit for the talent he left behind while we repeatedly hear from certain posters that Kruger left a bare cupboard. The only difference is that players transferred from OU and didn't from ISU, and neither Kruger nor Moser had any control over that.
There's no doubt his stint at Illinois State is considered a failure. Porter has basically said as much, and views that as one of the most important steps in his career, as it forced him to work under a legendary coach in Majerus and reinvent himself. I've simply been saying that Moser is a slow builder and left all his programs better than he inherited them. His tenure at Loyola was a smashing success, and no reasonable person can argue that (but we do have unreasonable people here)
I would also consider this season a failure (thus far), though last year was not given the hand he was dealt. I don't put people on the hot seat for 3/4 of a bad season. Next year will be important, though I probably wouldn't fire him unless it's an unmitigated disaster. Unless Sherfield returns or our NIL explodes, I don't expect next year's postseason team to make much noise in the postseason. If Moser returns his main 4 HS recruits and shows progression with them as well as brings in two more top 100 caliber, I think that would be enough for me.
Kruger gets full credit for Hill, Gibson, Harkless, and Big Rick.
WichitaSooner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2015
- Messages
- 6,755
- Reaction score
- 1,960
I’d also guess that no one on this board (myself included) has no clue how talented the players he left behind at ISU were. It’s just a way to try to give him credit for a good season after he was fired.
In general, it’s just amazing that anyone could look at the season-by-season results for ISU before and after Moser and claim with a straight face that he left the program better than he found it.
As for Loyola, I’m not sure anyone has even claimed he didn’t leave it better than he found it. But I don’t think that’s all that remarkable given the fact he had over a decade there, and considering how bad they were before he got there. More to the point, the discussion we should be having is whether, over a 20-year career, he has shown himself to be a good coach on anything resembling a consistent basis. A handful of good seasons at low majors, weighed against three times that many average to bad seasons, doesn’t suggest this is a guy who will succeed at the level we are accustomed to at OU.
Here you go:
https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/illinois-state/men/2008.html
He left every starter other than Dinma Odiakosa, and Emmanuel Holloway was the only other significant contributor.
That is 1 of my favorite websites, Eielson. Odiakosa played at Illinois state in 05-06. He may have been ineligible in Moser’s final year, so basically the entire team was Moser players. Idk what to completely make of it since the same team (sans Odiakosa) did so much better the next year under Jankovic. Obviously Moser admitted he learned a lot from the failure and from Majerus. His tenure at Loyola certainly supports that. Still tbd here at ou.
I think what Wichita and others are saying is that had Moser got to coach at ISU one more year, they may not have been any or much better than they were his other years. It's pretty hard to prove otherwise, but his successor obviously inherited a pretty good roster of players which is what I'm guessing was Eielson's point.
As for Moser becoming a better coach after serving four years under a Hall of Fame caliber head coach, I think that became obvious after what he accomplished at Loyola. I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone would question that. Coaches can improve. Just look at Baylor's Scott Drew. We used to make fun of him in his early years there because it was so easy for him to be outcoached. I'll throw another name at you - Kelvin Sampson. If anyone thinks he is the same coach now as he was 20 years ago, I know one person who would vehemently disagree - Kelvin Sampson. He has said many times that going to the NBA made him a better offensive coach.
All this arguing though, accomplishes nothing. Porter Moser needs to start winning next season. PERIOD.
You're right, apparently I was underestimating it! Jankovich inherited the entire starting lineup, which succeeded, but proceeded to get worse every year. Same exact thing as the SMU team he inherited from Larry Brown.
Yes, I think both parties can be right in this case. Moser left a stocked cupboard for jankovic (so he definitely left isu better than he found it, which is what Eielson said). Moser also did a piss-poor job of getting results on the court with the same group of players, albeit a year younger.
Definitely agree that coaches can and should get better via experience and also working with other great coaches/players.
hoopsaustin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2008
- Messages
- 8,852
- Reaction score
- 1,004
That only tracks as failure to me imo. This means that he HAD a good roster and did nothing with it to the tune of getting fired. If that same roster does better AFTER that is even worse..
Everyone including Moser agree he failed at isu. Doesn’t mean he didn’t leave the place better than he found it, which is Eielson’s premise.
We are all hoping that Moser got a lot better at coaching with Majerus and while at Loyola. Imo, moser did a pretty good job last year and he has a done a poor job this year.
Similar threads
- Locked
