Are we fading away like UMass did after their Final 4?

[PoorManProfit]

353 Divsion I teams in college basketball. I wonder how many programs' fan bases would kill for the NCAA tournament history Mason's program has? 175? 200?

I think most of the disdain around here is how G Mas squandered their good fortune surrounding 2006. It's a blueprint on how to f**k up.

 

[Falco]

One minute Mason is a "low major" and then next there's "how does Mason win a championship" thread lol

I apologize for calling Mason a “Low Major” They average 9th in the 10. What I was thinking?!?!

George Mason A10 Standings
2013-14- 11th
2014-15 - 13th
2015-16- 12th
2016-17- 7th
2017-18- 5th
2018-19- 5th
2019-20- 12th

 

[Quentin Daniels]

What I was thinking?!?!

We all wonder that about you pretty regularly.

Consensus is you don't.

 

[FreeGunston12]

I apologize for calling Mason a “Low Major” They average 9th in the 10. What I was thinking?!?!

George Mason A10 Standings
2013-14- 11th
2014-15 - 13th
2015-16- 12th
2016-17- 7th
2017-18- 5th
2018-19- 5th
2019-20- 12th

There also was a transition to a new conference and a new coach in there. But I share your frustration.

I guess the question is: can schools/teams (like individuals) be promoted to incompetence?

I saw a video recently reminding me of "the Peter principle". In my mind, this relates in that Mason was "promoted" to the A-10 for succeeding in the CAA. But what made Mason successful in the CAA will not necessarily translate to the A-10.

Counterpoint, almost everyone around the program is new since the transition. But, could the fan base, community, etc just not be able to give what it takes to be a great A-10 basketball program? Will winning solve all this? Will we have what it takes to win before winning? Which will come first - a lucky season or better infustructure? IS JDK'S CAPS LOCK KEY BROKEN? I just don't know.

 

[mkaufman1]

There also was a transition to a new conference and a new coach in there. But I share your frustration.

I guess the question is: can schools/teams (like individuals) be promoted to incompetence?

I saw a video recently reminding me of "the Peter principle". In my mind, this relates in that Mason was "promoted" to the A-10 for succeeding in the CAA. But what made Mason successful in the CAA will not necessarily translate to the A-10.

Counterpoint, almost everyone around the program is new since the transition. But, could the fan base, community, etc just not be able to give what it takes to be a great A-10 basketball program? Will winning solve all this? Will we have what it takes to win before winning? Which will come first - a lucky season or better infustructure? IS JDK'S CAPS LOCK KEY BROKEN? I just don't know.

Well said. If nothing more, Mason should be the absolute best it can be. What that means, who knows. Hopefully that means an NCAA appearance in Men's basketball once in a while.

 

[Falco]

There also was a transition to a new conference and a new coach in there. But I share your frustration.

I guess the question is: can schools/teams (like individuals) be promoted to incompetence?

I saw a video recently reminding me of "the Peter principle". In my mind, this relates in that Mason was "promoted" to the A-10 for succeeding in the CAA. But what made Mason successful in the CAA will not necessarily translate to the A-10.

Counterpoint, almost everyone around the program is new since the transition. But, could the fan base, community, etc just not be able to give what it takes to be a great A-10 basketball program? Will winning solve all this? Will we have what it takes to win before winning? Which will come first - a lucky season or better infustructure? IS JDK'S CAPS LOCK KEY BROKEN? I just don't know.

I get your point, but Mason moved on from Hewitt because they wanted better.

 

[tblack33]

I get your point, but Mason moved on from Hewitt because they wanted better.

Alot of people forget this. You didn't hear a ton of people crying resources when Hewitt couldn't win here after we moved to the A10. The expectation should be an NCAA appearance every contract, with 5 year deals for the HC. If you can't do it in 5 years you probably just can't do it.

 

[FreeGunston12]

Alot of people forget this. You didn't hear a ton of people crying resources when Hewitt couldn't win here after we moved to the A10. The expectation should be an NCAA appearance every contract, with 5 year deals for the HC. If you can't do it in 5 years you probably just can't do it.

Well that's probably because Hewitt disappointed with better leftover talent for 2 years on a level playing field in the CAA. He showed no ability to develop his own recruited talent, despite bringing in a handful of the best recruits in school history. And he flat out looked despondent if not indifferent while having two disastrous seasons in the A-10. He won fewer games every season during his contract and finished with a 9-win season. So I will not be boohooing for any unfair shake the man may or may not have gotten.

I can't believe anyone on these boards would try to raise sympathy for Paul Hewitt. He drove this program into the ground as much as anyone else.

If your point is to criticize Paulsen, by all means go ahead. There is no need to elevate Hewitt to do so.

Bottom line: Paul Hewitt being a terrible coach and Dave Pauslen being a terrible coach are not mutually exclusive stances.

 

[mkaufman1]

Alot of people forget this. You didn't hear a ton of people crying resources when Hewitt couldn't win here after we moved to the A10. The expectation should be an NCAA appearance every contract, with 5 year deals for the HC. If you can't do it in 5 years you probably just can't do it.

I definitely agree that 5 years is a pretty decent benchmark for schools at Mason's level to measure whether a coach has what it takes to make it back to the NCAAs with that program.

That said, 5 years with each program is not created equal and every coach comes at a different point of where the program is. Paulsen took Mason when it was at an extreme low point. Unfortunately he hasn't caught the lightning in a bottle that many coaches at an A10 level got by now to make an appearance (like Schmidt did in year 5). Patience is certainly wearing thin on my end, but it doesn't appear it is where the decisions actually get made.

In addition, resources was always something that people cried about with Mason especially once they got to the A10. And I don't blame many people when you have schools like Dayton and vcu as the high benchmarks.

 

[tblack33]

Well that's probably because Hewitt disappointed with better leftover talent for 2 years on a level playing field in the CAA. He showed no ability to develop his own recruited talent, despite bringing in a handful of the best recruits in school history. And he flat out looked despondent if not indifferent while having two disastrous seasons in the A-10. He won fewer games every season during his contract and finished with a 9-win season. So I will not be boohooing for any unfair shake the man may or may not have gotten.

I can't believe anyone on these boards would try to raise sympathy for Paul Hewitt. He drove this program into the ground as much as anyone else.

If your point is to criticize Paulsen, by all means go ahead. There is no need to elevate Hewitt to do so.

Bottom line: Paul Hewitt being a terrible coach and Dave Pauslen being a terrible coach are not mutually exclusive stances.

You are mistaking what I said for elevating Hewitt. The point was, when Hewitt sucked no one brought up the resource argument. Paulsen came in and started to struggle, and all of the sudden the reason we couldn't recruit or win was because we were so resource constrained. Hewitt absolutely got a fair shake at it, he came in and in 5 years he couldn't get it done, so he got fired. I completely agree that they are not mutually exclusive, it's just interesting to watch the 180 alot of people to do rationalize why Dave couldn't win but didn't make the same arguments for why Hewitt couldn't win. Alot of people doing alot of mental gymnastics on here trying to defend why Dave can't make it work at this level.

 

[Dawgs99]

You are mistaking what I said for elevating Hewitt. The point was, when Hewitt sucked no one brought up the resource argument. Paulsen came in and started to struggle, and all of the sudden the reason we couldn't recruit or win was because we were so resource constrained. Hewitt absolutely got a fair shake at it, he came in and in 5 years he couldn't get it done, so he got fired. I completely agree that they are not mutually exclusive, it's just interesting to watch the 180 alot of people to do rationalize why Dave couldn't win but didn't make the same arguments for why Hewitt couldn't win. Alot of people doing alot of mental gymnastics on here trying to defend why Dave can't make it work at this level.

I really don't see a lot of people going out of there way to defend Dave, really outside of Jim its nobody. The problem is, if anyone says anything positive about any facet of the program ( getting excited about a new recruit) they immediately get lumped into this crowd. Dave has made his own bed here at Mason, he hasn't gotten in done in many areas.

 

[Falco]

Well that's probably because Hewitt disappointed with better leftover talent for 2 years on a level playing field in the CAA.

So true. We still had expectations of the program. I expected yearly NCAA bids.

But to be fair, I didn't realize how important Hancock was to the team until he won a national championship and an MVP.

 

[MasonSAE4]

So true. We still had expectations of the program. I expected yearly NCAA bids.

But to be fair, I didn't realize how important Hancock was to the team until he won a national championship and an MVP.

Doesn't really matter. Even sans Hancock that team should've been making way more noise than it did in the CAA. He took a good squad and made it awful, and then couldn't do anything with his high-level recruits.

As someone already pointed out, you can doubt Paulsen while still recognizing that Hewitt's implosion of the program was way more spectacular of a failing. He even had the CAA all to himself essentially for a year after vcu left and still sucked.

 

[Pablo]

Hewitt absolutely got a fair shake at it, he came in and in 5 years he couldn't get it done, so he got fired.

Not to excuse Hewitt, but he was fired after 4 seasons.

 

[G M U]

Not to excuse Hewitt, but he was fired after 4 seasons.

The benefit of knowing what ya got. PH was bad and we could pull the plug in 4 years and move on to the next one versus DP and the slow bleed with no end in sight

 

[Falco]

Doesn't really matter. Even sans Hancock that team should've been making way more noise than it did in the CAA. He took a good squad and made it awful, and then couldn't do anything with his high-level recruits.

As someone already pointed out, you can doubt Paulsen while still recognizing that Hewitt's implosion of the program was way more spectacular of a failing. He even had the CAA all to himself essentially for a year after vcu left and still sucked.

I think it’s fair to expect a slight drop off when a national champion MVP leaves.

But I agree. Comparing Paulsen and Hewitt is like comparing two piles of shit, either way you have a pile of shit.

 

[Masonfan3]

I think it’s fair to expect a slight drop off when a national champion MVP leaves.

But I agree. Comparing Paulsen and Hewitt is like comparing two piles of shit, either way you have a pile of shit.

I can't believe I am going to say this, but Hewitt's first season we won the 3rd most games in a single season in Mason history. Granted that roster might (or should have been) our best ever but its hard to call it a failure when comparing it to all the other seasons we have had. We made it to the semis of the conference tournament and lost to vcu which we pretty much did every time we played them down there. His 2nd year we probably had the biggest home win in Mason history when we beat UVA. It is what he did after that that was a colossal failure and a pile of shit.

 

[JimP]

No basketball expert, but I remember watching the first Hewitt coached games at GMU. I thought the drop off in level of play was immediate, even though they won a lot of games that first year. Schedule was so weak that the third most Mason wins did not even result in the NIT.

 

[sleeperpick]

No basketball expert, but I remember watching the first Hewitt coached games at GMU. I thought the drop off in level of play was immediate, even though they won a lot of games that first year. Schedule was so weak that the third most Mason wins did not even result in the NIT.

yea crazy bad OOC SOS. Only 60 positions better than the schedule Paulsen created last year....

 

[mkaufman1]

yea crazy bad OOC SOS. Only 60 positions better than the schedule Paulsen created last year....

Lol not that it matters, but some of those games were determined because of the loss to FIU. Because they lost they ended up getting like 3 really bad cupcake games. The hope was to beat FIU and have a chance at beating VT. Also some of those games were determined by Larranaga.

Doesn't really matter as its history at this point.