|
Post by ncaam on Jul 31, 2017 19:20:30 GMT -5
Let's say we go 4-7 this year. Do we fire CTG or keep him? If some want to keep him are we not in the same conundrum as a couple of years ago when ADNP extended him to protect recruiting? Will we be forced to give him another extension ad infinitum?
Respect td128 much, but the assistant coaches are going to turn 4-7 into 7-4?
|
|
|
Post by A Clock Tower Purple on Jul 31, 2017 19:44:18 GMT -5
Trusted assistants regularly turn L's into W's based on prep and in-game decision making in every sport, and given how some feel about TG, apparently assistants offer the only hope.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jul 31, 2017 19:50:41 GMT -5
Let's hope we have some young Duffners, Rosleys, Shermans, et al.
|
|
|
Post by jkh67 on Jul 31, 2017 19:57:09 GMT -5
Here's the "post Randolph" record (2010-2016) (excluding Monmouth, Bryant, etc.): Colonial Athletic: UMass 0-2 Ivy: Harvard 2-4 Patriot: Colgate 2-5 UNH 0-3 Dartmouth 2-4 Lehigh 1-6 Albany 1-2 Brown 1-4 Lafayette 5-2 Bucknell 5-2 Fordham 2-5 Georgetown 4-3 So, we've gone 1-7 against the CAA; 5-12 against the Ivies; and 19-23 against the PL. (Putting aside going 10-4 against those pigskin powerhouses, Bucknell and Lafayette, the PL record is 9-19). Some might be tempted to say res ipsa loquitur! If you wanted to actually take a step back and thing through what has happened in the 1-AA landscape in the last 10 years, the results would make more sense. 3 years prior to TG's arrival: 2001: 4-6 2002: 4-8 2003: 1-11 (The cupboard was pretty bare.)TG's first two seasons: 2004: 3-8 2005: 6-5 TG's recruits make up Frosh-Juniors: 2006: 7-4 TG's recruits make up the entire roster: 2007: 7-4 2008: 7-4 2009: 9-3 Meanwhile, in 2006 the NEC announced that they were adding scholarships, meaning that their first year with schollies on the roster was 2008, and they reached their full allotment in 2010(initially 30, then increasing to 40). Say what you want about the schools in the NEC, but them adding schollies had a direct impact on the pool of kids that HC could recruit without scholarships. This is also the time that the Ivy League re-structured their financial aid program and made it a lot easier to recruit athletes with generous aid packages. Combine these two "outside factors" with HC being toward the bottom of the PL in spending and support (significantly behind Colgate, Lehigh, Lafayette) and Fordham adding scholarships in 2009, and it's not all that difficult to understand why our results tailed off. 2010: 6-5 2011: 6-5 2012: 2-9 2013: 3-9 2014: 4-8 2015: 6-5 2016: 4-7 I don't know how you can argue that there is not a direct correlation between HC's drop-off and the change the change in the 1-AA landscape in the northeast on the back end of the 2000s. Now that we have fully ramped our scholarships and increased support for the football program, we are starting to see some big recruiting wins and I fully expect to see a jump similar to where TG brought the program beginning in his 3rd and 4th years.
|
|
|
Post by jkh67 on Jul 31, 2017 20:04:12 GMT -5
Here's the "post Randolph" record (2010-2016) (excluding Monmouth, Bryant, etc.): Colonial Athletic: UMass 0-2 Ivy: Harvard 2-4 Patriot: Colgate 2-5 UNH 0-3 Dartmouth 2-4 Lehigh 1-6 Albany 1-2 Brown 1-4 Lafayette 5-2 Bucknell 5-2 Fordham 2-5 Georgetown 4-3 So, we've gone 1-7 against the CAA; 5-12 against the Ivies; and 19-23 against the PL. (Putting aside going 10-4 against those pigskin powerhouses, Bucknell and Lafayette, the PL record is 9-19). Some might be tempted to say res ipsa loquitur! If you wanted to actually take a step back and thing through what has happened in the 1-AA landscape in the last 10 years, the results would make more sense. 3 years prior to TG's arrival: 2001: 4-6 2002: 4-8 2003: 1-11 (The cupboard was pretty bare.)TG's first two seasons: 2004: 3-8 2005: 6-5 TG's recruits make up Frosh-Juniors: 2006: 7-4 TG's recruits make up the entire roster: 2007: 7-4 2008: 7-4 2009: 9-3 Meanwhile, in 2006 the NEC announced that they were adding scholarships, meaning that their first year with schollies on the roster was 2008, and they reached their full allotment in 2010(initially 30, then increasing to 40). Say what you want about the schools in the NEC, but them adding schollies had a direct impact on the pool of kids that HC could recruit without scholarships. This is also the time that the Ivy League re-structured their financial aid program and made it a lot easier to recruit athletes with generous aid packages. Combine these two "outside factors" with HC being toward the bottom of the PL in spending and support (significantly behind Colgate, Lehigh, Lafayette) and Fordham adding scholarships in 2009, and it's not all that difficult to understand why our results tailed off. 2010: 6-5 2011: 6-5 2012: 2-9 2013: 3-9 2014: 4-8 2015: 6-5 2016: 4-7 I don't know how you can argue that there is not a direct correlation between HC's drop-off and the change the change in the 1-AA landscape in the northeast on the back end of the 2000s. Now that we have fully ramped our scholarships and increased support for the football program, we are starting to see some big recruiting wins and I fully expect to see a jump similar to where TG brought the program beginning in his 3rd and 4th years. A useful review of some relevant external factors affecting FBS football in the NorthEast. But it doesn't adequately explain why we have done so poorly compared to Colgate, Lehigh and Fordham over this period. They've had to deal with the same environment after all. Money may be one reason, but surely it is not the only one.
|
|
|
Post by jkh67 on Jul 31, 2017 20:17:14 GMT -5
Playing devil's advocate, all these outside factors mentioned do not explain the three losses to a severely underfunded Gtown and the constant poundings we took last season from Dartmouth, Lehigh, Colgate, Albany(with PP), the close loss to lowly Bucknell, and especially the total 40 point embarrassment to Fordham in Yankee Stadium before many alums., a game over in the first quarter. Gilmore's defenses have been consistently bad. Agreed. Everyone was affected by the same external factors mentioned by bringbackcaro. Yet Colgate, Lehigh and Fordham managed to prosper and we did not. Money may well have been a factor, but surely it could not have been the only one.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Jul 31, 2017 21:52:17 GMT -5
Playing devil's advocate, all these outside factors mentioned do not explain  the three losses to a severely underfunded Gtown and the constant poundings we took last season from Dartmouth, Lehigh, Colgate, Albany(with PP), the close loss to lowly Bucknell, and especially the total 40 point embarrassment to Fordham in Yankee Stadium before many alums., a game over in the first quarter. Gilmore's defenses have been consistently bad. Agreed.  Everyone was affected by the same external factors mentioned by bringbackcaro.  Yet Colgate, Lehigh and Fordham managed to prosper and we did not.  Money may well have been a factor, but surely it could not have been the only one. Fordham began offering scholarships, and Colgate and Lehigh significantly outpaced us in support (both $ and institutional support).
|
|
|
Post by hc87 on Jul 31, 2017 22:25:59 GMT -5
It is what it is.....most of you know how I already feel about this topic.
I'll grant you we didn't get the all the support needed perhaps with the reintroduction of scholarships....but Fordham, Lehigh and Colgate are hardly Alabama, Ohio St and Texas respectively.
The head coach of a 1-AA football program shouldn't be judged solely on turning out fine young men.....it should be implicitly implied that that is hopefully the case but this isn't high school football.
We will all see how we fare this year...I'll say this, the schedules for 2017, 2018 and 2019 are all daunting.....will Gilmore be excused for these as well?
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Jul 31, 2017 23:32:10 GMT -5
As I recall, our former basketball coach represented HC well, was well liked by his players, was a man of personal integrity, etc. Yet was fired before the end of his contract due to his unsatisfactory win-loss percentage. Seems like when it comes to WINNING, there's a big difference between Milan Brown and Tom Gilmore. Why?
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Aug 1, 2017 5:47:06 GMT -5
You could call it "lucky" or whatever you want to ascribe it to (Dom Randolph, Crusader savior?) but the difference between Tom Gilmore and Milan Brown is that Gilmore brought home a Patriot League trophy and contended at least 2 or 3 other seasons. Milan Brown never came close to either a regular season or Patriot League tournament championship (that got him two bites of the apple every year, Gilmore gets one). That is a huge difference.
I respected and liked Milan Brown but on the court his teams never got it done over the course of an entire season. Gilmore has done it and it obviously has bought him time with Nate. I don't think Tom has an indefinite period to turn things around but the playing field is getting more level each season. Let's be patient and see how it plays out.
|
|
|
Post by jkh67 on Aug 1, 2017 7:29:50 GMT -5
For the most part, this thread is nothing but an extremely lengthy exercise in making excuses. Team didn't do well? Blame it on the external environment or lack of institutional support or not enough money or whatever. From what I read here, Gilmore has apparently had nothing to do with the year after year mediocre or worse performances. If we have another bad year, what will the excuses be? Schedule too tough? Too many young inexperienced players? Fr. Buroughs not having enough Crusader in him? Gilmore needing yet more time to right the ship? Puleeze! YOU PLAY THE GAME TO WIN THE GAME. IF YOUR LEADER HASN'T MADE THAT HAPPEN, IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE. SIMPLE AS THAT.
|
|
|
Post by breezy on Aug 1, 2017 7:30:58 GMT -5
I think it should be obvious that decisions on retaining or removing a coach are not based solely on win/loss records. The Athletic Director has the responsibility to observe how the program is being conducted, whether there is a positive vibe, and whether there is promise of future success. My sense (without any inside information and just from personal observation) is that Milan Brown was fired because the Athletic Director determined that the program was not being run in a way that would lead to improvement in future years, and that new leadership was needed to maximize the program's potential. My sense (again, without any inside information and just from personal observation) is that Tom Gilmore is being given more time because the program is on a positive track. Now, certainly, if the result is another losing season or two, the Athletic Director may come to a different view. I consider the "joint letter" that Pine/Gilmore issued at the end of last season might be a sign that progress or better records have to come pretty soon, and I also think that last year's injury circumstances played a factor in deciding that no change is necessary as yet. (And, again, I think the fact that Tom Gilmore has poured heart and soul into his efforts at Holy Cross is a point in his favor. There is nothing that I see to suggest that a new coach would be able to achieve more success sooner, especially since the schedules are getting tougher each year. We know that the Ivies have taken steps to improve their programs, and HC is now playing at least one FBS school and CAA schools instead of lower-level schools that we played in the past.)
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Aug 1, 2017 7:48:39 GMT -5
jkh, what about the PL championship and contending years? Too many people used the "excuse" that all of this happened despite Tom Gilmore and that it was all due to Dom Randolph. Hokum!
Sure he has to win. He knows that better than any of us. Give him the tools (which he is now getting - successful Gridiron Club that did not exist until well after some of our more successful PL brethren and now the LAC - with resultant landing higher quality recruits) and let's see how he does.
The purpose of the survey I posted on another thread is to gauge how high the bar is for him to be "successful" from the perspective of the Crossports faithful. Ultimately, "success" will be measured and determined by Nate Pine and Fr. Boroughs.
|
|
|
Post by HCFC45 on Aug 1, 2017 8:10:39 GMT -5
As I recall, our former basketball coach represented HC well, was well liked by his players, was a man of personal integrity, etc. Yet was fired before the end of his contract due to his unsatisfactory win-loss percentage. Seems like when it comes to WINNING, there's a big difference between Milan Brown and Tom Gilmore. Why? There were other factors that contributed to the "unsatisfactory win-loss percentage" and ultimately to his being let go. It did not happen just because of the win-loss percentage!
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Aug 1, 2017 8:28:01 GMT -5
You could call it "lucky" or whatever you want to ascribe it to (Dom Randolph, Crusader savior?) but the difference between Tom Gilmore and Milan Brown is that Gilmore brought home a Patriot League trophy and contended at least 2 or 3 other seasons. Milan Brown never came close to either a regular season or Patriot League tournament championship (that got him two bites of the apple every year, Gilmore gets one). That is a huge difference. I respected and liked Milan Brown but on the court his teams never got it done over the course of an entire season. Gilmore has done it and it obviously has bought him time with Nate. I don't think Tom has an indefinite period to turn things around but the playing field is getting more level each season. Let's be patient and see how it plays out. There is a laundry list of things that differentiate Tom Gilmore from Milan Brown. If you were to plot all head coaches based on their personality, coaching style, work ethic, etc. TG would be about as far away from Milan Brown as you could possibly get.
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Aug 1, 2017 8:50:08 GMT -5
For the record.....I was not a fan of Milan Brown....to put it mildly.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Aug 1, 2017 9:03:31 GMT -5
Milan Brown proved over and over again that he was a very ineffective "X's & O's" coach. No one should have doubted that in my opinion.There is certainly some question about CTG's in game coaching (& that of the assistants he has employed) with the evidence I presented regarding our record in close games. However, I believe (and I always admit I'm no expert in these two sports) CTG is a much better coach than CMB. Both appear to be fine men.
|
|
|
Post by purplehaze on Aug 1, 2017 9:30:38 GMT -5
Hey, fellow crossports HC boosters - that's who we are, correct ? It's aug. 1st and the team will be arriving on campus this week to start serious preparation for another season. Let's get behind coach Gilmore, his staff and players 110 pct ! Put the past in the rearview mirror and support this team unconditionally.
|
|
|
Post by dharry13 on Aug 1, 2017 10:11:11 GMT -5
Along that line, does anyone have an idea of what the daily schedule is looking like? If I remember we used to practice from 9-11AM ish, lunch break, nap, film, back out there at 3PM. Still the same idea?
|
|
|
Post by 86sader on Aug 1, 2017 10:32:38 GMT -5
I'll get that for you ASAP...
|
|
|
Post by unhfan on Aug 1, 2017 11:34:06 GMT -5
Along that line, does anyone have an idea of what the daily schedule is looking like? If I remember we used to practice from 9-11AM ish, lunch break, nap, film, back out there at 3PM. Still the same idea? [b No more two a days! FCS has gotten rid of them. It makes each practice even more important.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Aug 1, 2017 11:40:21 GMT -5
Along that line, does anyone have an idea of what the daily schedule is looking like? If I remember we used to practice from 9-11AM ish, lunch break, nap, film, back out there at 3PM. Still the same idea? Note that NCAA rules now only allow one practice per day with contact - max of three hours. A second one can be held, but must be no-contact - just walk-throughs or film sessions. Also no conditioning in the second one. There is also a recommendation that no more than three practices a week include contact - but I'm not sure if that was actually put into the rules or not. If not, I'm sure it will be.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Aug 1, 2017 11:43:41 GMT -5
Along that line, does anyone have an idea of what the daily schedule is looking like? If I remember we used to practice from 9-11AM ish, lunch break, nap, film, back out there at 3PM. Still the same idea? [b No more two a days! FCS has gotten rid of them. It makes each practice even more important. Note my post above. Teams can still have a second practice, if they want, but it must be non-contact with no helmets/pads. The contact practice is limited to a max of three hours, and the second session - if a team chooses to have one - is limited to two hours.
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Aug 1, 2017 12:07:45 GMT -5
If you paid attention to Milan Brown's games, it became crystal clear that his skills at the blackboard and on the bench were very weak. It didn't look like a well coached team. I believe every PL coach would support that statement (if they were honest). Likewise, our football teams have not looked like well coached teams under Gilmore. Plenty of playing on the part of individuals were at times outstanding and were the biggest contributors to whatever wins we had. But in terms of offense and defense schemes and on the sideline coaching, very weak. Just as we went from Night to Day when we went from Brown to Carmody, we need to go from Night to Day in football. Not an easy task. But it shows how fortunate we were in getting Willard and Carmody, two nationally respected coaches.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Aug 1, 2017 12:57:36 GMT -5
If you paid attention to Milan Brown's games, it became crystal clear that his skills at the blackboard and on the bench were very weak. It didn't look like a well coached team. I believe every PL coach would support that statement (if they were honest). Likewise, our football teams have not looked like well coached teams under Gilmore. Plenty of playing on the part of individuals were at times outstanding and were the biggest contributors to whatever wins we had. But in terms of offense and defense schemes and on the sideline coaching, very weak. Just as we went from Night to Day when we went from Brown to Carmody, we need to go from Night to Day in football. Not an easy task. But it shows how fortunate we were in getting Willard and Carmody, two nationally respected coaches. What a ridiculous over-simplification to say that the players are the reason we've had any good play. Again, it is foolish to compare Milan Brown and Tom Gilmore in any category, with X's & O's and game preparation near the top of the list. I would not claim to be an expert on football defensive X's & O's, but it almost appears as though there have been times that the players were "over-coached" and given too many schemes to think about rather than just playing, which is the polar opposite of what Milan Brown brought to the table. And our offense has rarely been an issue with TG as the Head Coach. Our biggest issue for the last 3-5 seasons has been top end talent and depth. I believe that we will be seeing upgrades in each category beginning this Fall.
|
|