Coaching Carousel 2023 - D1

[gymman1031]

If everyone if going off on Breschi how about the 2017 runner up who’s getting smoked by Mich now, has run off most inbound transfers he takes in and has this record since w 1 playoff appearance and a 5-9 season in 23?

2018 Nick Myers 8–7 3–2 T–2nd
2019 Nick Myers 8–4 1–4 T–5th
2020 Nick Myers 5–2 0–0 † †
2021 Nick Myers 4–7 4–6 T–3rd
2022 Nick Myers 10–6 3–2 3rd NCAA Division I First Round
2023 Nick Myers 5–8 1–4 T–5th

He definitely could be feeling some serious heat after this season. Don't think he will lose his job though.

[a fan]

Yes and you have your mind made up that all of the coaches have absolutely no impact whatsoever on any of the results and that a team cannot possibly underachieve because of coaching it’s all this sort of mythological world where the coach who recruits the players and coaches the players is somehow not responsible for getting good players or the players they come into. It’s just decided that all of the great teams get the great players and those teams are great and if a team doesn’t win it’s because they didn’t get great players. Why? Well it’s just hard.

No. I'm simply paying attention to our sport and the world we live in, and coming to my own conclusions.

If the coach is what's key/important/big factor (choose your phrasing).....now you're on the hook for explaining performance.

As you just pointed out.....Breschi did show up , recruited well, developed players, won games, and built a winning culture at UNC. Just like you asked. So...what happened? That coach is key, right? So...why aren't they in Final Fours of late? Do you have an answer for that?

Now ask the same question, and apply it to Tierney. Or Desko. Or Petro. Or Nadelen, for that matter.

Or how about Toomey? What happened there? You have to explain to me why these coaches stopped winning if coaching is THAT important.


As for me? I think of other questions like: how many programs were fully funded when Scroggs was coach? Same question for 2000. Same question for 2023. Anyone know? I'd be amazed if anyone knew. I sure don't.

Now ask: how much was out of State tuition at the above schools in 1980, 2000, and now 2023?

The world is changing and shifting. The economy has changed. The recruiting hotbeds are shifting. The number of D1 programs with 12.6 scholarships is changing. All these things are playing a role. And all these things, imho, play a larger role on where top college players (not top HS players) land than who the head coach is.

This explains.....to me.......why Petro, Tierney, Desko, Toomey (the list is long) stopped making Final Fours. All bound for the HOF. All stopped getting the players they used to get.

It also explains....to me.......why Tillman was one game over .500 at Harvard, Lars Tiffany was 95-56 at Brown, and Danowski was 192-123 at Hofstra.

You have a different opinion. That's cool. I'm good with that. Simply sharing mine.

[jrn19]

Lars Tiffany bring 95-56 at Brown does explain a lot to me, yes. It explains that he won 63% of his games and went to a Final Four and then when he went to a school with more resources he won two championships.

John Danowski winning 61% of his games and making 3 Quarterfinals at Hofstra explains that when he went to Duke, he started winning even more.

Great coaches win a lot.

[gymman1031]

One must remember that Tills was at Harvard for only three seasons and didn't inherit a program in great shape. I hope at least a few of you agree with me that, had he stayed for longer, things would very likely have gotten better and better.

[10stone5]

Lars Tiffany bring 95-56 at Brown does explain a lot to me, yes. It explains that he won 63% of his games and went to a Final Four and then when he went to a school with more resources he won two championships.

John Danowski winning 61% of his games and making 3 Quarterfinals at Hofstra explains that when he went to Duke, he started winning even more.

Great coaches win a lot.

Oh noes,

you had to bring up the Dutch,
how did they not make at least the Semis that one year

[a fan]

Lars Tiffany bring 95-56 at Brown does explain a lot to me, yes. It explains that he won 63% of his games and went to a Final Four and then when he went to a school with more resources he won two championships.

John Danowski winning 61% of his games and making 3 Quarterfinals at Hofstra explains that when he went to Duke, he started winning even more.

Great coaches win a lot.

Ok...but if you believe that that's an axiom.....why did Breschi stop winning as much? Great coach, right?

Or Desko? Or Tierney? Or Toomey?

[Lewisfrederick]

I don’t think UNC has a toxic culture, but I do think they have a losing culture unfortunately. It feels like they will lose more close games than they win. And it seems like far fewer top recruits blossom at UNC as they do at other schools.

I think one of the reasons why Chris Gray improved UNC so much, outside of being an excellent player, is that he gave the team confidence that they could win these close games and games against other excellent teams.

I don’t think that culture is going to change under Breschi, and that bringing in someone new to breathe fresh air into the program is the only way to improve this.

[Exlaxbro]

Rumor has it Panos is out at Queens. New D1 program and an opportunity for a coach to make his mark.

Really? After just one season as their coach in DI? And after lots of success in DII?

So it seems. He was not on the sideline today.

There was some controversy a couple years ago when Queens brought in Hannan from Mercer to be the associate head coach supposedly without much input from Panos. Maybe they couldn't get rid of Panos yet but wanted to secure Hannan as the next head coach. Seems like a pretty rotten thing to do if true. Now Hannan has decided just to go back to Goucher and Panos is gone before the season has ended. Not a great look for the program.

Not at all. I wonder what their plan might be. Tough making the leap to D1 and doing this in year 1 unless they have their guy in mind. Hannan coming back?

[molo]

I’m usually in agreement with Doc on most issues, but an Ivy/Hopkins bias taints his comments about UNC’s academic reputation. Granted that athletes in general and lax players in particular do not have to meet the same academic standards to be admitted as do general students, but admission to UNC is extremely difficult for NC students and off the charts difficult for out of state students. I say this as someone with two UVA degrees as well as a certificate of advanced studies from Hopkins who worked
as a school counselor for more than 40 years. There may be public universities regarded as more selective than UNC, but you can count them on on hand. It is an elite institution.

[jrn19]

Lars Tiffany bring 95-56 at Brown does explain a lot to me, yes. It explains that he won 63% of his games and went to a Final Four and then when he went to a school with more resources he won two championships.

John Danowski winning 61% of his games and making 3 Quarterfinals at Hofstra explains that when he went to Duke, he started winning even more.

Great coaches win a lot.

Ok...but if you believe that that's an axiom.....why did Breschi stop winning as much? Great coach, right?

Or Desko? Or Tierney? Or Toomey?

Because they fail to adjust with the changes in the game. They stop recruiting as well. The culture in their program drops off. They don't connect with their players quite the same.

This is like asking why anything in the world changes. Why did the Roman Empire fall? Great empire, right?

These dudes are not robots. John Desko's teams had a run of 3-4 years there where every playoff loss they suffered they would take a litany of penalties and play undisciplined, reckless lacrosse. 7 against Towson. 4 against Cornell. 4 against Loyola. 8 against Georgetown. That stuff is coaching. It's not about the physical or athletic. The mental is coachable. Desko was not getting through to those players the way he was before. It did not mean he was a bad coach from 1999-2009 or 2010-2015. It meant he was not the coach he was before.

Tierney with Metz and then Brown was always at the cutting edge of what was being done on offense, from the 90s through to the early 2010s and mid-2010s. Many folks have pointed out how Denver's offense has struggled to adapt as well as others to the shot clock. Their offense was built seamlessly to the rules prior to the shot clock. They would work long possessions with crisp, efficient passing, have tremendous offensive spacing, wear you down, and ALWAYS find the open man by making you overcommit once they sped the ball movement up or when you needed to get the ball. They broke your back through these possessions. Coupled with having the greatest FOGO of all time, it was an avalanche to overcome. They rarely had elite dodgers, but it didn't matter. They had the smartest players, great passers, elite finishers. When the rules allowed for long possessions and forced you to come to them to get the ball, this was king. They played for sharp margins by going inside because they had great passers and great finishers. The shot clock doesn't allow for long possessions. Defenses now force you more and more to beat you 1v1. Denver hasn't adjusted to this. The offense is very similar to what they ran before. Style of player is pretty similar. Hence, the offense has dropped off a lot compared to what it was before. Pre-shot clock, they ranked Top 5 in offense routinely. Now, they're 20-30. The defense is still great. But the rule changes necessitated a change and they haven't quite caught up. That's on the coaching staff.

Loyola's recruiting has dropped off. Pat Spencer was a 5-star recruit in his class. Jacob Stover was #33 in that class. Ryan McNulty was a 5-star in 2016. Aidan Olmstead was #28 in 2017. Bailey Savio was #41. Kevin Lindley was #72. They have not replaced those 3 guys this year. Scanlan was #9 in 2018 but as we saw had many, many character flaws. Cam Wyers was #48. But they don't have another defender like him on the roster. Evan James was their only outfield player recruited from the Top 100 in 2019. He's been solid for them. But that's it. In 2020 they had Staudt, Lindsey, Higgins. Good players. In 2021? They recruited three 4-star players. There's no more Spencer's or McNulty's or Olmstead's or Savio's on the roster. And now they're replenishing even fewer of the good players like Staudt and Lindsey and Higgins and James. They did get Matthew Minicus a 5* in last year's class and he immediately has become their best player. Perhaps he could be a game changer in the future. But there's your answer. The roster just is not as talented as it was once was. Is that down to Toomey? I saw Quint suggest earlier this year perhaps that with less and less early recruiting, the big schools are missing fewer of the elite players and that talent is more and more concentrating to the B1G/ACC/Ivy and we're not seeing a Loyola or Albany like we did during that time. Perhaps that's it. But at the end of the day, recruiting and talent ID falls on Toomey and Loyola is in a state and area with a lot of talent. It's gotten it before. It isn't as much now. He's gotta get that turned around or the results will likely continue as they are and if they do, I can't see Loyola stomaching them forever.

Tillman hasn't had those dips. Nor Danowski. Nor Tiffany. That's why they're still the 3 best coaches in the game. Tillman has stayed ahead of every curve. No matter the roster composition he has, or what the scenario, he is there at the end. Lars totally changed his style around 7-8 years in at Brown and went from pretty successful to the Final Four and then took it to UVA and won 2 titles. Dino arrived on the scene at Duke, a program that was very, very good...and made it better. His "dip" was last year, which was a bad coaching job, they should never have been in a position to miss the tournament. Now they're back with a Top 3 team.

All these guys were/are great. Some eventually lose the touch. That's true in all sports. The ones that don't stay on top the longest.

[a fan]

Because they fail to adjust with the changes in the game. They stop recruiting as well. The culture in their program drops off. They don't connect with their players quite the same.

This is like asking why anything in the world changes. Why did the Roman Empire fall? Great empire, right?

These dudes are not robots. John Desko's teams had a run of 3-4 years there where every playoff loss they suffered they would take a litany of penalties and play undisciplined, reckless lacrosse. 7 against Towson. 4 against Cornell. 4 against Loyola. 8 against Georgetown. That stuff is coaching. It's not about the physical or athletic. The mental is coachable. Desko was not getting through to those players the way he was before. It did not mean he was a bad coach from 1999-2009 or 2010-2015. It meant he was not the coach he was before.

Tierney with Metz and then Brown was always at the cutting edge of what was being done on offense, from the 90s through to the early 2010s and mid-2010s. Many folks have pointed out how Denver's offense has struggled to adapt as well as others to the shot clock. Their offense was built seamlessly to the rules prior to the shot clock. They would work long possessions with crisp, efficient passing, have tremendous offensive spacing, wear you down, and ALWAYS find the open man by making you overcommit once they sped the ball movement up or when you needed to get the ball. They broke your back through these possessions. Coupled with having the greatest FOGO of all time, it was an avalanche to overcome. They rarely had elite dodgers, but it didn't matter. They had the smartest players, great passers, elite finishers. When the rules allowed for long possessions and forced you to come to them to get the ball, this was king. They played for sharp margins by going inside because they had great passers and great finishers. The shot clock doesn't allow for long possessions. Defenses now force you more and more to beat you 1v1. Denver hasn't adjusted to this. The offense is very similar to what they ran before. Style of player is pretty similar. Hence, the offense has dropped off a lot compared to what it was before. Pre-shot clock, they ranked Top 5 in offense routinely. Now, they're 20-30. The defense is still great. But the rule changes necessitated a change and they haven't quite caught up. That's on the coaching staff.

Loyola's recruiting has dropped off. Pat Spencer was a 5-star recruit in his class. Jacob Stover was #33 in that class. Ryan McNulty was a 5-star in 2016. Aidan Olmstead was #28 in 2017. Bailey Savio was #41. Kevin Lindley was #72. They have not replaced those 3 guys this year. Scanlan was #9 in 2018 but as we saw had many, many character flaws. Cam Wyers was #48. But they don't have another defender like him on the roster. Evan James was their only outfield player recruited from the Top 100 in 2019. He's been solid for them. But that's it. In 2020 they had Staudt, Lindsey, Higgins. Good players. In 2021? They recruited three 4-star players. There's no more Spencer's or McNulty's or Olmstead's or Savio's on the roster. And now they're replenishing even fewer of the good players like Staudt and Lindsey and Higgins and James. They did get Matthew Minicus a 5* in last year's class and he immediately has become their best player. Perhaps he could be a game changer in the future. But there's your answer. The roster just is not as talented as it was once was. Is that down to Toomey? I saw Quint suggest earlier this year perhaps that with less and less early recruiting, the big schools are missing fewer of the elite players and that talent is more and more concentrating to the B1G/ACC/Ivy and we're not seeing a Loyola or Albany like we did during that time. Perhaps that's it. But at the end of the day, recruiting and talent ID falls on Toomey and Loyola is in a state and area with a lot of talent. It's gotten it before. It isn't as much now. He's gotta get that turned around or the results will likely continue as they are and if they do, I can't see Loyola stomaching them forever.

Tillman hasn't had those dips. Nor Danowski. Nor Tiffany. That's why they're still the 3 best coaches in the game. Tillman has stayed ahead of every curve. No matter the roster composition he has, or what the scenario, he is there at the end. Lars totally changed his style around 7-8 years in at Brown and went from pretty successful to the Final Four and then took it to UVA and won 2 titles. Dino arrived on the scene at Duke, a program that was very, very good...and made it better. His "dip" was last year, which was a bad coaching job, they should never have been in a position to miss the tournament. Now they're back with a Top 3 team.

All these guys were/are great. Some eventually lose the touch. That's true in all sports. The ones that don't stay on top the longest.

Really great post. I disagree with some of your points, but that's best left for the offseason, and is splitting hairs.

I agree 100% about the recruiting dropoff. For me? That's it, and nothing more.

All you have to do is look at the Championship rosters for each Coach's last Championship, and compare it to their latest (or last) roster. It's night and day. Not even a close call when it comes to the talent levels. Want to blame the coaches for that? Fair. Totally fair. But I just do not agree that multiple HOF coaches can't, for example, adjust to a shot clock.

Particularly when I watch a Final Four teams "fancy offense" is: give the ball to Schellenberger/ONeill/Berhardt and get the D moving, and hit the open guy. And then when you get bored with that, give it to your second best dodger who will do the same thing from a different part of the field.

Appreciate your post, and for taking the time for a well articulated response.

[jrn19]

Because they fail to adjust with the changes in the game. They stop recruiting as well. The culture in their program drops off. They don't connect with their players quite the same.

This is like asking why anything in the world changes. Why did the Roman Empire fall? Great empire, right?

These dudes are not robots. John Desko's teams had a run of 3-4 years there where every playoff loss they suffered they would take a litany of penalties and play undisciplined, reckless lacrosse. 7 against Towson. 4 against Cornell. 4 against Loyola. 8 against Georgetown. That stuff is coaching. It's not about the physical or athletic. The mental is coachable. Desko was not getting through to those players the way he was before. It did not mean he was a bad coach from 1999-2009 or 2010-2015. It meant he was not the coach he was before.

Tierney with Metz and then Brown was always at the cutting edge of what was being done on offense, from the 90s through to the early 2010s and mid-2010s. Many folks have pointed out how Denver's offense has struggled to adapt as well as others to the shot clock. Their offense was built seamlessly to the rules prior to the shot clock. They would work long possessions with crisp, efficient passing, have tremendous offensive spacing, wear you down, and ALWAYS find the open man by making you overcommit once they sped the ball movement up or when you needed to get the ball. They broke your back through these possessions. Coupled with having the greatest FOGO of all time, it was an avalanche to overcome. They rarely had elite dodgers, but it didn't matter. They had the smartest players, great passers, elite finishers. When the rules allowed for long possessions and forced you to come to them to get the ball, this was king. They played for sharp margins by going inside because they had great passers and great finishers. The shot clock doesn't allow for long possessions. Defenses now force you more and more to beat you 1v1. Denver hasn't adjusted to this. The offense is very similar to what they ran before. Style of player is pretty similar. Hence, the offense has dropped off a lot compared to what it was before. Pre-shot clock, they ranked Top 5 in offense routinely. Now, they're 20-30. The defense is still great. But the rule changes necessitated a change and they haven't quite caught up. That's on the coaching staff.

Loyola's recruiting has dropped off. Pat Spencer was a 5-star recruit in his class. Jacob Stover was #33 in that class. Ryan McNulty was a 5-star in 2016. Aidan Olmstead was #28 in 2017. Bailey Savio was #41. Kevin Lindley was #72. They have not replaced those 3 guys this year. Scanlan was #9 in 2018 but as we saw had many, many character flaws. Cam Wyers was #48. But they don't have another defender like him on the roster. Evan James was their only outfield player recruited from the Top 100 in 2019. He's been solid for them. But that's it. In 2020 they had Staudt, Lindsey, Higgins. Good players. In 2021? They recruited three 4-star players. There's no more Spencer's or McNulty's or Olmstead's or Savio's on the roster. And now they're replenishing even fewer of the good players like Staudt and Lindsey and Higgins and James. They did get Matthew Minicus a 5* in last year's class and he immediately has become their best player. Perhaps he could be a game changer in the future. But there's your answer. The roster just is not as talented as it was once was. Is that down to Toomey? I saw Quint suggest earlier this year perhaps that with less and less early recruiting, the big schools are missing fewer of the elite players and that talent is more and more concentrating to the B1G/ACC/Ivy and we're not seeing a Loyola or Albany like we did during that time. Perhaps that's it. But at the end of the day, recruiting and talent ID falls on Toomey and Loyola is in a state and area with a lot of talent. It's gotten it before. It isn't as much now. He's gotta get that turned around or the results will likely continue as they are and if they do, I can't see Loyola stomaching them forever.

Tillman hasn't had those dips. Nor Danowski. Nor Tiffany. That's why they're still the 3 best coaches in the game. Tillman has stayed ahead of every curve. No matter the roster composition he has, or what the scenario, he is there at the end. Lars totally changed his style around 7-8 years in at Brown and went from pretty successful to the Final Four and then took it to UVA and won 2 titles. Dino arrived on the scene at Duke, a program that was very, very good...and made it better. His "dip" was last year, which was a bad coaching job, they should never have been in a position to miss the tournament. Now they're back with a Top 3 team.

All these guys were/are great. Some eventually lose the touch. That's true in all sports. The ones that don't stay on top the longest.

Really great post. I disagree with some of your points, but that's best left for the offseason, and is splitting hairs.

I agree 100% about the recruiting dropoff. For me? That's it, and nothing more.

All you have to do is look at the Championship rosters for each Coach's last Championship, and compare it to their latest (or last) roster. It's night and day. Not even a close call when it comes to the talent levels. Want to blame the coaches for that? Fair. Totally fair. But I just do not agree that multiple HOF coaches can't, for example, adjust to a shot clock.

Particularly when I watch a Final Four teams "fancy offense" is: give the ball to Schellenberger/ONeill/Berhardt and get the D moving, and hit the open guy. And then when you get bored with that, give it to your second best dodger who will do the same thing from a different part of the field.

Appreciate your post, and for taking the time for a well articulated response.

/thumbs up

Obviously recruiting is the lifeblood of programs and the main thing. I don't disagree. Desko's recruiting also dropped off. And Tierney's. I didn't want to just answer "recruiting" for all of them though. For example, I don't think Starsia's recruiting dropped off. His last few classes were the guys that were on the field for Lars' first title in 2019. So what was the difference there? It had to be the coach. By all accounts it seems the culture really rotted at UVA towards the end of the Starsia era, even from when they won the title in 2011 but once the senior leaders in guys like Stanwick and O'Reilly and Malphus moved on they could never get it back. He still recruited the vast bulk of that 2019 roster though.

Some of recruiting is not the coach's fault. Some of it is conference change or overall sport change. But for example, Pietramala made the choice to go all in on early recruiting. Hopkins results declining largely coincide with that choice. He bears a significant degree of responsibility for their dropoff in that regard. I don't think Syracuse going from winning 5 national titles in 10 years to being a Quarterfinal program from 2010-2017 is necessarily emblematic of John Desko's decline as a coach. I think that's probably a recruiting decline that has to do with more programs joining the top echelon and Cuse joining the ACC and having to recruit with more attractive destinations. But when Cuse drops to a First Round program and then see what the roster was in 2022, that to me says they fell even further below what the program's standard is and yeah, recruiting was a part of it. As was the repeating nature of the losses (tons of penalties, undisciplined and reckless, blown 2H leads against Cornell and Loyola due to tons of penalties.)

Coaches are changing variables. When Maryland let go of Dave Cottle, they were excoriated. Bill Tierney literally wrote a column in IL talking about how it was the real "May Madness." They were asked what they possibly expected from their program. "Do you expect to make the Final Four every year?" I believe was one quote. They were told they weren't Virginia or Duke or Carolina or Syracuse or Hopkins. They were basically told to stay in their place. John Tillman came in and changed it. Recruiting is a huge part of it. He recruited better players than Dave Cottle. That's part of his job. That's part of what makes him a better coach. Towson changed from Tony Seaman the same year to Shawn Nadelen. Similarly were criticized. But Seaman had a senior class go 4 straight losing seasons. That had only happened once before at Towson. It was below the program's level. Nadelen led the program on maybe their best run of success ever at the D1 level. On the flip side, look at what's happened at Colgate the last few years compared to where things where the last 10-15 years before. Conference is a little easier last couple years too.

It's not all as simple as you win more games, you did better; lose more, you did bad. Especially at the mid-majors, boom or busts are going to happen. Towson has lost a bunch of close games the last few years for instance that if you flip a few the record looks so much different. That'll happen. Coaches can obviously bounce back. We saw it happen this year with Tambroni. But they are variable changers IMO.

[gymman1031]

Seth Tierney and Hofstra have just missed the CAA Tournament for the second-consecutive season. I think he will be back in 2024. But another season without at least an appearance in that tournament could be tough for him to survive.

[westernbestern]

a

[Gorilla Fan]

I thought Tambroni was on the hot seat, and hopping on the carousel?

[jrn19]

Seth Tierney and Hofstra have just missed the CAA Tournament for the second-consecutive season. I think he will be back in 2024. But another season without at least an appearance in that tournament could be tough for him to survive.

He's missed the CAA tournament 6 times since 2012. It's more rare for him to actually make the conference tournament. Hofstra does not care. Unless there's movement on his side towards possibly moving on, the job is his till he wants to leave.

[gymman1031]

Seth Tierney and Hofstra have just missed the CAA Tournament for the second-consecutive season. I think he will be back in 2024. But another season without at least an appearance in that tournament could be tough for him to survive.

He's missed the CAA tournament 6 times since 2012. It's more rare for him to actually make the conference tournament. Hofstra does not care. Unless there's movement on his side towards possibly moving on, the job is his till he wants to leave.

The thing is, might they start caring a bit more with Stony Brook becoming the premier DI program on Long Island and being in the same conference?

[10stone5]

I thought Tambroni was on the hot seat, and hopping on the carousel?

He’ll be shown the door right after Penn State makes it to
the Final Four

[jrn19]

Seth Tierney and Hofstra have just missed the CAA Tournament for the second-consecutive season. I think he will be back in 2024. But another season without at least an appearance in that tournament could be tough for him to survive.

He's missed the CAA tournament 6 times since 2012. It's more rare for him to actually make the conference tournament. Hofstra does not care. Unless there's movement on his side towards possibly moving on, the job is his till he wants to leave.

The thing is, might they start caring a bit more with Stony Brook becoming the premier DI program on Long Island and being in the same conference?

no

[August]

Question: Does Petro replace Breschi or do little Petros transfer to Cuse?