The other coaches, how did they do it?

[appfanjj]

Going back now to the home schedule. We never play anyone at home that moves the needle with the students or entices anyone else to make the trip up to a game. Crummy opponents = a crummy atmosphere. Who can get excited about playing Hampton or even the majority of the sun belt teams? I love college basketball and would love to see us become relevant as a mid major but at this point it is almost painful to sit through a game. Yes, I attend several games per season to support the program.

[bigapp]

But back to your question. Yes, location does play a role. I was trying to be PC in my earlier post and I'll be careful again because the "ist" and "ism" crowd could take what I'm about to say the wrong way and I don't mean it that way but, a large majority of basketball recruits come from the more urban/populated areas. And given that basketball is an indoor sport, and that, for the most part, our primary recruiting footprint is in the south, then many of them don't really think a lot of cold weather.

is that why Vermont is so historically bad at basketball? or Northern Iowa? or...actually how many examples would you need to disprove your "location" theory? 15, 25, 50? I recall "location" was our biggest detriment in football too.

If it can be done in Hattiesburg, Mississippi of all places, it can be done better in Boone.

The problem with Appalachian basketball is culture. We allowed the malaise to set in and fester during the Fancher years, even as many of us were screaming from the mountaintops about it. Once it's ingrained, it's difficult to get rid of.

Location has NOTHING to do with it. At all. Unless you're want to make excuses.

[firemoose]

But back to your question. Yes, location does play a role. I was trying to be PC in my earlier post and I'll be careful again because the "ist" and "ism" crowd could take what I'm about to say the wrong way and I don't mean it that way but, a large majority of basketball recruits come from the more urban/populated areas. And given that basketball is an indoor sport, and that, for the most part, our primary recruiting footprint is in the south, then many of them don't really think a lot of cold weather.

is that why Vermont is so historically bad at basketball? or Northern Iowa? or...actually how many examples would you need to disprove your "location" theory? 15, 25, 50? I recall "location" was our biggest detriment in football too.

If it can be done in Hattiesburg, Mississippi of all places, it can be done better in Boone.

The problem with Appalachian basketball is culture. We allowed the malaise to set in and fester during the Fancher years, even as many of us were screaming from the mountaintops about it. Once it's ingrained, it's difficult to get rid of.

Location has NOTHING to do with it. At all. Unless you're want to make excuses.

I said it plays a ROLE. Never said it was the only reason. Not making excuses, just pointing out what I hear and read from recruits and coaches. We don't often recruit Vermont or Northern Iowa, or many other northern areas (although I did say in the next line that you didn't quote that we've had more success with recruits from more northern areas. You left off that part). It's not in our normal footprint. And it doesn't get all that cold in Hattiesburg, MS, but getting kids to come from there and many other places in the south to here isn't that easy.

I work recruiting all day, every day. I know what I hear and read from recruits as to why they don't like it here. Culture is a large part of it and I've said that many time when I brought up the game day experience or lack there of and other issues in many posts, including the post you quoted part of but conveniently left out those other parts. But if you think location has absolutely NOTHING to do with it, as you say, then I can give you a dozens of examples where it was mentioned as an issue.

I live in the world of recruiting. But if you have better sources and more information then maybe you should take over the recruiting forum on the site. I do this for the members of the board and if I can't provide the best information possible for them on recruiting then I should let someone else take control. Sure would free up a lot of time for me....

[bcoach]

But back to your question. Yes, location does play a role. I was trying to be PC in my earlier post and I'll be careful again because the "ist" and "ism" crowd could take what I'm about to say the wrong way and I don't mean it that way but, a large majority of basketball recruits come from the more urban/populated areas. And given that basketball is an indoor sport, and that, for the most part, our primary recruiting footprint is in the south, then many of them don't really think a lot of cold weather.

is that why Vermont is so historically bad at basketball? or Northern Iowa? or...actually how many examples would you need to disprove your "location" theory? 15, 25, 50? I recall "location" was our biggest detriment in football too.

If it can be done in Hattiesburg, Mississippi of all places, it can be done better in Boone.

The problem with Appalachian basketball is culture. We allowed the malaise to set in and fester during the Fancher years, even as many of us were screaming from the mountaintops about it. Once it's ingrained, it's difficult to get rid of.

Location has NOTHING to do with it. At all. Unless you're want to make excuses.

I know about 1/10 of 1% of what moose knows about recruiting but I do know that to say it has NOTHING at all to do with it is just a silly statement.

[appfan22]

Frank Martin at USC inherited a similar situation in regards to building a basketball program at a historic football institution. Five years from starting that job, look where they are now. Given, an SEC market is leaps and bounds ahead of the Sun Belt, but changing a culture at a school takes much more than three years especially after having to sort through recruiting and academic scandals (Tom Crean at Indiana took 5-6 years to return them to relevance). There's a reason leadership gave Fox the five year contract. Building a program from the depths of the basement takes time. This past season we saw flashes of brilliance especially towards the end. Shabazz put on a show against a Troy team that ultimately won the sun belt and played Duke pretty competitively in the tourney, along with some clutch victories against top teams in the conference. Suspensions put a rain cloud over what was shaping up to be a strong final quarter of the season. I believe with the new William & Mary transfer, coupled with our nationally recognized team youth maturing one more year, 2017-18 should begin to show significant signs of a turnaround. Conference games being changed to Saturday/Monday slate plus the defined student section are a solid frame to hopefully help gameday atmosphere as well.

[WVAPPeer]

Both Martin and Crean had been experienced head coaches at solid programs and it still took them several years in their new setting - It takes time, especially doing things the right way ---

[EastHallApp]

Being a football school was the least of the problems that Fox inherited, if it's really a problem at all.

[Boonesock_Daints]

Just to play devil's advocate to the "malaise" that was the Fancher years. I do recall his recruits during his final 3-4 years set the school record for most wins over a 4 year span, I believe 80. Set school records for wins in a season 25, which was almost reached again during the "buzz" year at 24(fancher's guys). During that time they also had wins over VCU, Virginia(won regular season ACC that year), Vandy( was ranked 17th) and Wichita State and finished with a top 50 RPI. Looked like to me the program was headed for legitimate relevancy up UNTIL Capel......IMHO Fancher doesn't get the credit he deserves...

[bigCasu]

Who knows what Fancher would have done had he been given the opportunity to stick around. Unfortunately, those that were instrumental in removing Fancher were concerned about him turning it around. That's not what they wanted. They needed some spark, and it was the supposed spark that really got us where we are today. It was Fuzz 2.0 and Capel that really dropped all the anchors.

[EastHallApp]

Fancher got the opportunity to stick around for nine seasons. He never played for the SoCon title, and only once had consecutive winning seasons. Yes his '07 team had a great year at 25-8. The next two years, he went 18-13, then 13-18. Hard to spin that as heading in the right direction.

[Boonesock_Daints]

Ok, I'll give it a shot, after the 25 win season they lost DJ Thompson(all time leader in assists? top 5 in scoring, all time leader in steals?) lost Demetrius Scott(arguably the best perimeter defender in the league) and Nate Cranford(steady deep threat went 10 for 11 at Chatt to set a record I do believe). Return Donte Minter and Jeremy Clayton(all time leader in blocks) and bring in Donald Sims(freshman year). That year they win 18 games after losing those pivotal guys. Hard to repeat the 25 win season(note: SCHOOL RECORD), especially when losing such great perimeter players and replace them with youth, however that youth would go on to win 24 games in a couple years...Yet after the 18 win season the team loses Clayton, Minter, Bowne...Minter being 1st team all conference and Clayton being the all time leader in blocked shots. So now you have to replace the depth at big man with inexperience, Butts, Webb, Williamson, Josh Hunter while the youth on perimeter is growing as well. Sims, Booth, Brand, etc. So like you say the team only wins 13 games that following year. 4 of those losses came in OT, and 6 others were by 5 points or less. That's 10 losses that were basically possession games with a young and inexperienced team that was gaining that experience. The following year with all those players returning and with Buzz at the helm the team won 24 games. Same team. I get what you're saying on optics alone it looked like regression from 25 wins to 13 in two years. However, Fancher would have won 24 games with those guys as well, maybe more. Keeping him around would have kept the steady influx of solid recruits coming into the program. No we probaly wouldn't have won 25 games a year. But, I do believe we could be a steady 15-25 from year to year. With more seasons leaning towards the 20 win mark and a few around the 15 as transition of players occured. Think of the players that Fancher recruited that are on the all time list at App. Thompson, Butts, Sims, Williamson, Clayton, Minter.... Things were looking UP is all I'm saying, and changes were made at the wrong time, in my opinion.

[appmaj]

Can I continue to blame Jordan's old roommate?

[Yosef84]

In retrospect, it would be hard to argue with the statement that we would be in better shape right now (and the past few years) if Fancher had remained in place. That being said, I don't think that is a reflection on Fox. It's a reflection on the two individuals who came in between Fancher and Fox and the damage done to the program. Fancher was a good coach and a top quality person. The only complaint I know of is that he simply didn't seem to have that "something extra" that would get our program to the "next level" specifically meaning: winning championships. He NEVER embarrassed this university and he will always have my respect, so I have no intention of criticizing him here. I just don't think the "Fancher" issue has any part in the current discussion. TWO horrendous coaching hires are the issue. Fox deserves the full length of his contract to turn that around. How quickly it can be done in an SEC environment or at a program with a deep basketball tradition is not really relevant either.

I know it's a hard process and I don't claim to have the answers. I just know that we had an unbelievably deep hole to climb out of.

[AtlAppMan]

This has become an interesting read.

Fancher was a good guy that tried hard to be a good coach for the university. He didn't embarrass the school, but from a pure W/L, athletic performance perspective, winning some level of tournament games, championships, he was middle of the road and could not deliver at the upper levels, even in a mediocre SoCon. I liked him but when one compiles the complete list of what should be expected from a coach, he did not get the job done. The bottom line is he had plenty of time, nine years, to get his house in order regardless of what happened in one year or the other as some have dissected in this thread. At some point, you have to conclude that he wasn't getting it done. If he was so good then some other school would have snatched him up and he would have excelled and made us look bad. That didn't happen so again it reinforces my opinion even more.

Another compelling fact against Fancher was Buzz coming in and taking Fancher's players and almost winning the SoCon. Buzz is not my favorite guy and I don't want him as our coach but he showed that he can coach way better than Fancher.

We definitely have had two coaches pre-Fox create a bad situation that Fox has had to clean up. I like Fox a lot. However, at some point he has to deliver too. I don't know all the specific details but hopefully Gillin has his progress checklist in his top drawer. For Fox I would expect things like, clean up API, rebuild reputation, W/L, championships, etc. However, due to dumpster fire he inherited, some of his objectives may not be visible to the basic fan, like me. I expect Gillin is looking behind the curtain. Surely Gillin and Fox have a checklist that will indicate/measure progress where most fans may not see them. Then assuming these objectives are met, at some point, 4-5 yrs out we WILL see some on court results. I am also impatient but can only trust Gillin is not making the same mistakes of our past AD when it comes to BB. I feel like we need to see the visible progress next year. I have not personally seen the progress I would have liked but I also totally think Fox was a good hire by all standards at the time he was hired.

[EastHallApp]

Ok, I'll give it a shot, after the 25 win season they lost DJ Thompson(all time leader in assists? top 5 in scoring, all time leader in steals?) lost Demetrius Scott(arguably the best perimeter defender in the league) and Nate Cranford(steady deep threat went 10 for 11 at Chatt to set a record I do believe). Return Donte Minter and Jeremy Clayton(all time leader in blocks) and bring in Donald Sims(freshman year). That year they win 18 games after losing those pivotal guys. Hard to repeat the 25 win season(note: SCHOOL RECORD), especially when losing such great perimeter players and replace them with youth, however that youth would go on to win 24 games in a couple years...Yet after the 18 win season the team loses Clayton, Minter, Bowne...Minter being 1st team all conference and Clayton being the all time leader in blocked shots. So now you have to replace the depth at big man with inexperience, Butts, Webb, Williamson, Josh Hunter while the youth on perimeter is growing as well. Sims, Booth, Brand, etc. So like you say the team only wins 13 games that following year. 4 of those losses came in OT, and 6 others were by 5 points or less. That's 10 losses that were basically possession games with a young and inexperienced team that was gaining that experience. The following year with all those players returning and with Buzz at the helm the team won 24 games. Same team. I get what you're saying on optics alone it looked like regression from 25 wins to 13 in two years. However, Fancher would have won 24 games with those guys as well, maybe more. Keeping him around would have kept the steady influx of solid recruits coming into the program. No we probaly wouldn't have won 25 games a year. But, I do believe we could be a steady 15-25 from year to year. With more seasons leaning towards the 20 win mark and a few around the 15 as transition of players occured. Think of the players that Fancher recruited that are on the all time list at App. Thompson, Butts, Sims, Williamson, Clayton, Minter.... Things were looking UP is all I'm saying, and changes were made at the wrong time, in my opinion.

Were any of those departures unexpected? College players graduate. If after 7-8 years on the job a coach hasn't prepared the roster enough to replace players who graduate, and as a result drops from 25 wins to 18 to 13, that's on him.

And it wasn't just that three-year stretch. Again, Fancher had nine years to build a program (or actually to maintain one, given that he inherited a team coming off three straight 20+ win seasons). That was always his pattern - have a decent year (but still fall short of the goal), then have a bad year. He had ample opportunity to show what he could do, and he did: He was an average coach - not great, not awful. (I assume other ADs share that view, which is why, even still at a relatively young age, not one other school has offered him a HC job in the seven years since he left App.)

For some App fans, I suspect that's acceptable for basketball. Let football do the winning, and whatever basketball can do is a bonus so long as they don't get arrested or put on probation.

I just have a different view. App basketball was consistently good when I was in school in the late-'90s, so to me, that continues to be the goal. Fancher inherited that consistent winner, and while he also inherited some bad - even tragic - circumstances, the bottom line is he had nearly a decade to get the program back to that level and he couldn't do it.

[appfanjj]

This has all been said before but where we went off the rails is by not giving the job to Matt McMahon. I think he could have taken HF's foundation and built on it. Never understood that decision.

[hapapp]

We would likely have avoided the disaster that transpired after Buzz left However, he hasn't yet broken thru at Murray State.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Mc ... asketball)

[Boonesock_Daints]

I agree, this is not a reflection on Fox at all, what he inherited was a mess to say the least. I was responding to the comment about the "malaise" that was the Fancher years. I just didn't see those years quite as harshly. I see all your points though and the bottom line is he didn't get it done. I just wanted to show the other side of the coin to the good he did for the program as well. I hope Fox can succeed and turn things in the right direction. McMahon at Murray also lost a lottery pick as he took the job. His incoming recruiting class looks to be among the best in mid majors though, I would expect to see a trend upwards for Murray State in the next two years. He would have been the right hire after Buzz but that didn't happen. We had Capel and the rest is history.

[Rekdiver]

I don't know how nor really care about the past. Serves no purpose. We have a good coach now but we need dynamic assistants with contacts, charisma and energy. Recruiting is paramount. The assistants need to sell this school and " Why not App"? We also need a core group of passionate students to make home games an event. The Holmes Horde.

[appfanjj]

Mountaineer Maniacs