Lost to Indiana State tonight 73 to 51. Wow
Don't forget (even though I would like to) DePaul handled us last year.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 09, 2010, 07:34:18 AM
Don't forget (even though I would like to) DePaul handled us last year.
Handled?
They beat us on a last second prayer because MU missed free throws. I think it'd be more appropriate to say MU handed it to DePaul last year.
They beat us. We lost. We did not hand them anything other than their only BE win.
This year, DePaul looks like it could go on to win about 6-7 games all year. Tough to run a system like Purnell's without his players.
Quote from: MUfan12 on December 09, 2010, 07:49:49 AM
Handled?
They beat us on a last second prayer because MU missed free throws. I think it'd be more appropriate to say MU handed it to DePaul last year.
KenPom's win probability chart (http://kenpom.com/winprob.php?g=1799&y=2010) for the game indicates that.
DePaul didn't "handle" us but we did lose. No MU fan is likely to forget it, but just in case we have posters who bring it up every time DePaul is mentioned.
Quote from: Brewtown Andy on December 09, 2010, 08:20:03 AM
KenPom's win probability chart (http://kenpom.com/winprob.php?g=1799&y=2010) for the game indicates that.
wow...thats a great graphic
If I'm reading that chart right, we had the game in the bag until under 30 seconds to go.
Quote from: jhags15 on December 08, 2010, 10:48:22 PM
Lost to Indiana State tonight 73 to 51. Wow
This should surprise no one. They went 1-17 in the Big East last year, lost their two best players - Mac Koshwal and Will Walker (both of whom were recruited by MU) - and had an undistinguished recruiting class.
DePaul's website notes that in the last four years their new coach, Oliver Purnell, had the third best winning percentage in the ACC behind NC and Duke, so things should improve with time. Also, a frosh, Brandon Young, has been playing well for them, but they have way too many holes right now.
We also lost to a bad South Florida team the year before. So we should expect someone to upset us on the road.
1994-95 Oliver Purnell 7-20
1995-96 Oliver Purnell 15-14
1996-97 Oliver Purnell 13-14
1997-98 Oliver Purnell 21-12
1998-99 Oliver Purnell 11-17
Growing up a Dayton fan, I know allllll about this... It'll take him a couple years to set up his system... but within 7 years, he'll have that team competing in the Big East. Quote me.
Quote from: LittleMurs on December 09, 2010, 05:46:19 PM
If I'm reading that chart right, we had the game in the bag until under 30 seconds to go.
I think there was a 70+% chance of MU winning up until that shot went into the air.
Quote from: 1001 N. 4th St. on December 10, 2010, 01:57:01 AM
1994-95 Oliver Purnell 7-20
1995-96 Oliver Purnell 15-14
1996-97 Oliver Purnell 13-14
1997-98 Oliver Purnell 21-12
1998-99 Oliver Purnell 11-17
Growing up a Dayton fan, I know allllll about this... It'll take him a couple years to set up his system... but within 7 years, he'll have that team competing in the Big East. Quote me.
Not to dispute you point, as the trends seems to be that he can build teams...what happened in 98-99 in Dayton? I don't recall...from the records he stumbled quite a bit there....
Quote from: 1001 N. 4th St. on December 10, 2010, 01:57:01 AM
1994-95 Oliver Purnell 7-20
1995-96 Oliver Purnell 15-14
1996-97 Oliver Purnell 13-14
1997-98 Oliver Purnell 21-12
1998-99 Oliver Purnell 11-17
Growing up a Dayton fan, I know allllll about this... It'll take him a couple years to set up his system... but within 7 years, he'll have that team competing in the Big East. Quote me.
From your numbers it doesn't seem like he built anything. The 7-20 season and the 21-12 season just seem like outliers. He had a losing record in 3 of the 5 years he was there and one season where he was better than .500 by 1 game. More importantly in the 5th season, where he had all of his own players, they tanked. I wouldn't exactly say that he built anything.
Looks to me like all he does is leave programs in better shape than when he showed up. Good hire.
Team Wins Losses Pct
10-11 DePaul 3 5 0.375
09-10 Clemson 21 11 0.656
08-09 Clemson 23 9 0.719
07-08 Clemson 24 10 0.706
06-07 Clemson 25 11 0.694
05-06 Clemson 19 13 0.594
04-05 Clemson 16 16 0.5
03-04 Clemson 10 18 0.357
02-03 Dayton 25 6 0.806
01-02 Dayton 21 11 0.656
00-01 Dayton 21 13 0.618
99-00 Dayton 22 9 0.71
98-99 Dayton 11 17 0.393
97-98 Dayton 21 12 0.636
96-97 Dayton 13 14 0.481
95-96 Dayton 15 14 0.517
94-95 Dayton 7 20 0.259
93-94 Old Dominion 21 10 0.677
92-93 Old Dominion 21 8 0.724
91-92 Old Dominion 15 15 0.5
90-91 Radford 22 7 0.759
89-90 Radford 7 22 0.241
88-89 Radford 15 13 0.536
Quote from: tommyc6 on December 10, 2010, 10:23:16 AM
From your numbers it doesn't seem like he built anything. The 7-20 season and the 21-12 season just seem like outliers. He had a losing record in 3 of the 5 years he was there and one season where he was better than .500 by 1 game. More importantly in the 5th season, where he had all of his own players, they tanked. I wouldn't exactly say that he built anything.
First, Purnell was at Dayton for nine years--not five. He had winning records in six of those seasons, including four straight 20+ win seasons at the end of his tenure.
Second, for comparison, in the two years prior to Purnell's arrival, Jim O'Brien led the Flyers to 4-26 and 6-21 records. They had as deep, if not deeper--hole to dig out of than DePaul does right now.
Third, after a stretch where Dayton made only one post season tournament of any kind over the eight seasons prior to his arrival ('87 to '94), Purnell had them in either the NIT or NCAA in five of his last six seasons.
If he can duplicate that performance at DePaul, they should be ecstatic about the hire.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on December 10, 2010, 02:50:55 AM
Not to dispute you point, as the trends seems to be that he can build teams...what happened in 98-99 in Dayton? I don't recall...from the records he stumbled quite a bit there....
Look at the years following those... I was just saying it was a rough start, as it will be with Depaul
Quote from: 1001 N. 4th St. on December 10, 2010, 01:37:17 PM
Look at the years following those... I was just saying it was a rough start, as it will be with Depaul
Gotcha. Sorry, I thought you were saying that those 5 years were his body of work where he turned the program around. I take it all back.
Purnell has rebuilt 3 teams in the past. And, DePaul desperately need a rebuilder. Paying twice the salary of the predecessor is what it took to get anyone to take this job. It's not a very attractive position to walk into.
1-35 record over the past 2 years in conference says it all. And, I think Purnell is having a tough time selling this to prospects. He didn't get a stellar recruiting class to help in '11. Solid, but, not stellar.
This shows how poorly the previous group of coaches stocked the shelves with less then Big East quality players. And, they are still here. Most fans were hoping for a house cleaning, but that's not DePaul's way. Besides, you have to get a replacement that wasn't coming.
DePaul has opened its purse for Coaching, recruiting and other. Time will tell if money is the answer to turning this program around.
Purnell has a 7 year contract, and he may need all of that.
Yes, we lost Koshwal and Will Walker. That was over 60% of our scoring and the bulk of our rebounds. No one came in to replace that. So, we will be beaten in scoring and on the boards. And, there certainly wasn't anyone on the bench to step up.
It's not a pretty sight.
After today, De Paul has company on the " God Awful" list