Who decides weather a coach stays or goes? We have been told by allegedly informed people that the "big money" will dry up if Jim Les leaves. Doesn??™t this indicate that the "big money" has an influence over who the coach is? If they have influence to effect weather a coach stays then they must have influence to effect if a coach goes. We have been told that ALL of the big money donors are completely satisfied with our situation. What would happen if all of the donors were unsatisfied? Id imagine if all of the members of the BSS called for a change it would happen and happen quickly. So what are the expectations of the people who have the most influence? I think that is a fair question.
-
Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.
Myth Busted - Butler vs. Bradley
- Thread starter tornado
- Start date
Who decides weather a coach stays or goes? We have been told by allegedly informed people that the "big money" will dry up if Jim Les leaves. Doesn??™t this indicate that the "big money" has an influence over who the coach is? If they have influence to effect weather a coach stays then they must have influence to effect if a coach goes. We have been told that ALL of the big money donors are completely satisfied with our situation. What would happen if all of the donors were unsatisfied? Id imagine if all of the members of the BSS called for a change it would happen and happen quickly. So what are the expectations of the people who have the most influence? I think that is a fair question.
I won't deny that "big money" may have an influence, but so does overall attendance, season-ticket renewal rate, overall donations to the university, character issues and graduation rates of the athletes, and many other factors which are not controlled by "big money donors". It is just one part of the overall picture. Blaming them is like blaming the average guy who buys a ticket to watch a game with his kid.
Also, "All the big-money donors" don't agree on everything you have suggested, just as any collection of Bradley fans or boosters will not unanimously agree on anything.
This program would be infinitely worse off if the BSS or the "big-money" donors were gone. The current coaching staff has done nothing but represent the university with dignity and class, they have had 3 winning seasons in a row with over 20 wins and the program has reached new heights in money raised, and they have good students who do well in class, thanks to the current coach. Most supporters see that this program is in good hands, and don't blame the coaches for the injury situations which last year kept them from a top 2 or 3 MVC finish and an NCAA bid, and could cost them the same this year.
BUBraves2006
New member
I'm still trying to understand why criticism = being anti BU/Les/the school/the Civic Center/the beer (maybe not the last one :-D)
Why would be people be frittering their free/work time looking and posting on this board if they didn't want BU to succeed?
I'd like to think that people don't post hundreds of times that have an axe to grind. Those people might post one thing and then leave.
If my boss/customers/co-workers think I'm doing a bad job, I'd expect him/her/them to tell me what I'm doing wrong. If they don't say anything, they obviously don't care. The people who DO care are the ones who are willing to give and take criticism in order to do the job better.
Everyone who's a regular poster wants BU to win. That's the most truthful statement in this whole thread.
Why would be people be frittering their free/work time looking and posting on this board if they didn't want BU to succeed?
I'd like to think that people don't post hundreds of times that have an axe to grind. Those people might post one thing and then leave.
If my boss/customers/co-workers think I'm doing a bad job, I'd expect him/her/them to tell me what I'm doing wrong. If they don't say anything, they obviously don't care. The people who DO care are the ones who are willing to give and take criticism in order to do the job better.
Everyone who's a regular poster wants BU to win. That's the most truthful statement in this whole thread.
I'm thinking the other Valley teams had something to do with BU not finishing toward the top of the Valley.
I don't think JL has done a great job and I don't think he's done a bad job..
BradleyBrave
New member
I think a majority of BU folks would agree with you.
We were not an NCAA-caliber team last year and we are nowhere near being an NCAA-caliber team this year, with or without Warren.
I totally agree that injuries can make it tougher for a team to achieve it's fullest potential in a given year, but let's not get carried away with playing the 'what if' game about what a given team could actually have been capable of, if not for injuries.
If Andrew Warren and Will Egolf were healthy this year, we still are not anywhere near an NCAA-caliber team. We'd be a better team, but nowhere near an NCAA bid.
Totally agree with you. I've never understood why certain people want to revoke your BU fan card and label you as "a hater" if you have anything critical to say about something that happens within the program. It is what it means to be a fan, in my opinion...you revel in the good times and get frustrated and impatient in the bad, but you are there through it all.
Nobody has used injuries as an excuse, but they are an important factor why Bradley is struggling against mediocre teams on the road. With a healthy Warren and Egolf, IMO, we'd be 8-2.
And if this team played the exact same schedule as ISU has played so far, we'd be 11-0, and everyone would be jubillant.
And if this team played the exact same schedule as ISU has played so far, we'd be 11-0, and everyone would be jubillant.
We never had anything resembling an NCAA resume last year. I will agree to that. And we always had too many question marks before this year to ever make that jump based on actual play. (Of course the yearly goal and standard should be NCAA)
I do think our performance, for a few games last year reached an NCAA performance level. Possibly vs MSU, then most notably the Drake win, and the Creighton smack-down. I think the team had the potential, but never reached it.
I really don't see how you can honestly believe that we would be 11-0 if only we could have played ISU's schedule...
We lost to UMKC, UW-M, and struggled mightily with FGCU...those teams are no better than a number of the teams on ISU's schedule (like Wright State, Bowling Green, UCSB, etc.).
I'm not defending ISU's schedule by any means...because it is not good...but to say that we would have gone 11-0 if we played their schedule, when we got absolutely hammered by cupcake UMKC is just empty wishful thinking on your part, in my opinion.
Most, at the start of the season, were complaining about how weak our schedule was.
I want to thank JL and KK for the opportunity we were given to play at Florida, Michigan State and at home against Butler. We were given a chance for a top 25 rating but things just didn't work out, we hung in those games.
Comparing schedules and saying what we would be if we had ISU's schedule is silly IMO. Who really cares who they play?
We have laid an egg in some games and don't look very good. Other games we look decent.
ISU won the games that they are suppose to. That's all they can do right now. We'll see how it goes in the conference.
Sorry, but the facts appear to show that you are wrong here.
Bradley won the FGCU game, so I am not sure why that enters the argument.
Other than Michigan State and Florida (which ISU would not have beaten), here are Bradley's losses--
Road-
UWM- RPI 157
Neutral-
UMKC- RPI 186
Home-
Butler- RPI 4 (I believe ISU would lose this game, too)
Here are ISU's road games-
Wright State- RPI 194
Central Michigan- RPI 245
SMU- RPI 316
Neutral courts-
Alabama State- RPI 281
Houston Baptist- RPI 332
So Bradley has played teams home, road, and neutral court that have been significantly superior teams. Silly or not, I don't see Bradley losing to any of the teams on ISU's schedule. Maybe ISU wins some of the games that Bradley didn't win (maybe UMKC and possibly UWM), and I am not saying Bradley is as good as ISU. But it is not unrealistic that they would be 11-0 with that awful schedule that ISU has played.
Bradleyguy10
New member
Hmm lots of varying opinions here. To be honest I think it's good that no one has used the injuries excuse..not players, or JL. But being a fan and my opinion not mattering I can openly say that if you think our season wouldn't be much different with Warren and Egolf then you are absolutely crazy. People always say these "noble" things like "lets not use injuries as an excuse". Let's call it a REASON instead of an EXCUSE. With a healthy team no doubt the starting lineup would be WE, TW, AW, DD, SM with EM, CR, TB, DN, and SS coming in frequently but instead with the injuries we have a lot of those guys starting. Tornado is right this team EXPERIENCE WISE (not AGE WISE) is a lot "younger". With Warren in SM isn't pressured as much and SM would be having more assists with him being able to feed it to a capable 3pt shooter, a capable driver (TW), and a capable post man (WE) and we'd be sitting pretty. I don't understand why people are being so "noble" and saying injuries shouldn't matter. You better believe injuries can RUIN a team. You think Andrew Warren would NOT have been able to match that Freshman Butler had? You think our own sophomore post player wouldn't have been able to have a great battle that would've been fun to see with Butler's sophomore post player? Our full strength team is very comparable to the Butler team in my opinion but we will never truly know because it won't happen. People need to stop freaking out we've had 2 key injuries in two positions that couldn't absorb the blow the most. Just unlucky I guess...
not sure who's freaking out.
Injuries or not we play defense very poorly. Having AW or WE in the lineup doesn't make another player all of a sudden box out or play good defense or make a simple entry pass into the post.
We still have poor fundamental play many times or lack of intensity when we shouldn't. Injuries have nothing to do with it.
The "facts" show I am wrong? Really? So now RPI = fact? Wow.
Who knows what would have happened if we played their schedule...but I don't think you can say with any degree of certainly that a team that got blown out by UMKC would go 11-0 against anyone's schedule...
In my opinion, Wright State is a significantly better team than UMKC, regardless of what the RPI "facts" tell us right now...If we got destroyed on a neutral court by UMKC, I don't see why we would believe that we would beat Wright State on their home court either...
But in the end it is all hypotheticals, so what does it matter? The reality is that we are not playing very well against the teams on our schedule, and after the last cupcake tonight, we will need to start playing much, much better if we hope to not have a dismal finish in a bad Missouri Valley Conference this year...
Bradleyguy10
New member
Yeah but playing WE and AW most of the time limits the playing time for those who DO NOT box out or do not play with intensity....AW is taller and would be harder to shoot over than the guards we have to play now that are barely 6 feet tall and WE is someone that is mobile and can athletically put himself in position for a block or good defensive positioning and I'm sure he'd be playing with intensity still if he hadn't gotten hurt.
Just admit that a starting lineup of WE, TW, AW, DD, SM is a lot better than a lineup of DC, TW, CR, DD, SM...with the latter SM only has one (or two depending if anyone steps up) guy to consistently pass to with confidence. With the former he has a 3 solid people and DD if he's on offensively and would relieve pressure on SM. It's just much more dangerous all around.
Not sure who's freaking out? Look at most of this post or any other thread for that matter. Don't get me wrong I'm upset as much as the next guy that BU is 5-5 but if JL even gets us close to a post season this season is qualified as good coaching with the personnel we are using. No true shooter and practically no center.
Just admit that a starting lineup of WE, TW, AW, DD, SM is a lot better than a lineup of DC, TW, CR, DD, SM...with the latter SM only has one (or two depending if anyone steps up) guy to consistently pass to with confidence. With the former he has a 3 solid people and DD if he's on offensively and would relieve pressure on SM. It's just much more dangerous all around.
Not sure who's freaking out? Look at most of this post or any other thread for that matter. Don't get me wrong I'm upset as much as the next guy that BU is 5-5 but if JL even gets us close to a post season this season is qualified as good coaching with the personnel we are using. No true shooter and practically no center.
my thoughts exactly!
Hey, as long as they are not from a top 25 media market (MM) we're safe...