I think it's safe to say that some of the folks here will never be happy. Outside of the tournament, Groce was mediocre in the MAC. Christian won 49 games here in two years, including a regular season shared title, and people acted like he was the worst coach in program history.
I like your facts! Groce won 53% of MAC games. In fact before his final year here he was below 50% in MAC play. Good probability he left because he knew he'd not repeat the Sweet 16 year and saw the big $$$ at Illinois. I too am perplexed by those who crucified Christian. He won 74% of his MAC games here. He's still hanging in there at BC while Groce is back in the MAC.
Who said anything about Groce taking Ohio back to the Sweet 16 the following year? Would it have been possible...I think so...especially with Bradds and LeVert coming in. To sit here and think that Groce said, "Hmmm...I can't take my team to back-to-back Sweet 16's..I'm outta here.".....is ridiculous. The dude took the money and became a millionaire and I don't blame him at all. I'm convinced Groce would have gotten his team back to the NCAA tourney the next year and everyone would have been thrilled with that.
Let me ask you this, in 20 years...what will you remember about Groce Vs Christian? Groce's NCAA tournament wins or Christian winning 74% of his MAC games and no NCAA tournament appearances? Come on man!? I don't see a banner hanging from the Convo that says Jim Christian won 74% of his MAC games. #14Months
Groce was a mediocre coach in MAC games; 2 losing seasons (7-9) and the year of sweet 16 we were 3rd in the East. Anyone can get hot at the right time and make a run.
Really...anyone can get hot and make a run??! Funny, I’m still waiting for Billy Hahn, Larry Hunter, Jim Christian and Saul Phillips to make a run. Enjoy hanging that "JC won 74% of his MAC games" banner up in the Convo rafters. #14Months
We do have that "JC won a share of the regular season conference title" banner up there. Funny, I can't find Groce's.
By the way, a coach as great as the legend, John Groce, must have done great things at Illinois with better talent in a better league, right? How did he do at Illinois?
Comical how people focus on Groce's "bad results" and JC's "good results". Who the hell is ever going to remember a 14-2 MAC season? I can't believe how so many get excited over solid years with no titles vs a run to the Sweet 16. One guy rose the program and had it positioned for serious national contention and the other guy killed it. I love all the excuses I'm reading here as to why Ohio was one made free throw away from the Elite 8. "It was the matchups"...one poster wrote. This is all very comical. Yep, Groce had nothing to do with it.
Go enjoy staring at the "JC won a share of the regular season conference title" banner every home game. I'll enjoy staring at Groce's two NCAA banners (one that reads Sweet 16) a hell of a lot more. Going to be interesting if Groce takes Akron to the NCAA's before Ohio. #14Months
Quick point of contention: Groce never had the program positioned for serious national contention and anybody who thinks that is kidding themselves. We had a nice run. We went to the Sweet 16. It was the most fun I've ever had as a sports fan.
But plenty of teams go to the Sweet 16. It's not the sort of feat that sets you up for national contention. Florida Gulf Coast went, never to be heard from again. Chattanooga, Bradley, Valpo, and Richmond have all been. Hell, Davidson had their run with a generational talent and it netted them a spot in a bigger conference. Are they nationally relevant?
It's possible but very hard to make the transition from strong mid-major in a single bid league to legitimate national contender. Here's the list that have accomplished it: Gonzaga, Butler, Wichita State, VCU, Saint Mary's, and Creighton.
All of those schools share a common trait: they don't pay for an FBS football team, so more budget goes to basketball.
Anybody who thinks Ohio, as currently set up, is just a few breaks away from consistent national contention is kidding themselves. We need an institutional change coupled with a run or two like the ones Groce oversaw. Which is exactly why Groce bolted for Illinois at the first opportunity and will do the same to Akron if he has success there. The MAC is limited as a basketball conference because it also tries to be a football conference. We're doomed to a ceiling of mediocrity in both as a result.
As change is typically evolutionary, wouldn't it be prudent to first focus on being dominant in our own conference before being nationally prominent? And with that in mind, and since budget was brought into the discussion, we already spend more than our peers, no? SO...what is preventing us from dominating our own conference?
And another sincere and earnest question, as I know many here think of OHIO as a "basketball" school, and after doing a lot of review on the OHIO basketball record book recently: when was OHIO ever dominant in basketball in a conference that consisted of more than six teams? And even then, was it ever dominant in basketball in it's conference?
I'm not sure that change is actually evolutionary in this business. There are plenty of examples of teams that changed their circumstances without on-the-court success. Change can be achieved with financial commitment alone.
I think Richmond's an instructive example. They went 13 years without an NCAA tournament win. They didn't dominate their conference during that period -- in fact, they basically got lapped by two previous conference foes (VCU and George Mason).
But during that 13-year lull, Richmond increased their athletic budget, renovated their arena, increased the basketball team's budget and moved from the CAA to the Atlantic 10. Interest amongst fans increased without wins because suddenly the home slate of games included Xavier, Temple, and Dayton instead of James Madison and Old Dominion. They started playing on TV regularly. They started attracting a higher caliber of recruit. They became able to retain coaches whereas previously they lost those that had success (Beilein, for instance). And they did all of that without dominating any conference.
In fact, in 1998, they beat South Carolina as a 14 seed. And without winning another tournament game, they were an at-large 7 seed by 2010.
There are plenty of other examples like that one. Ohio beat Richmond the only time we played them recently. From 1998 to present, Ohio has fielded many teams that would have beat Richmond consistently on the court. But they beat the shit out of us off the court and as a result, regardless of how many MAC games we win, they're better positioned for success than we are.
Why do you have to spend less on FB to spend more on BB? I always hear this straw man, which doesn't hold water, because we have significantly increased spending in hoops since the Groce era, and we outspend all of our MAC peers. Back to my original question: if spending more than anyone else in the MAC doesn't make us dominant in the MAC, then how much more than more than anyone else do you want to spend in order to be dominant in your own conference?
And don't get me wrong, I like that we spend at the top of the MAC in hoops, however it is also fair to ask what the return is on that level of spend, and to expect to outperform your conference peers while spending more than them.
I also like the fact that we spend less than half the teams in the MAC in FB, yet we seem to far outperform our spend, and I feel that the investment in FB, where you are only competing with 1/3 of the number of schools in FBS and we are spending in the bottom quartile in budget v all FBS schools, gets us a lot of exposure when teams like Gonzaga, Creighton, VCU, Wichita State and the other high mid major schools are getting ZERO marketing exposure from August to October.
ICA is an investment in public relations/school spirit, and if OHIO is going to compete in ICA, I want us to have a ten month investment, and not lose any marketing opportunities during an entire semester that we have in football.
Last Edited: 2/1/2018 12:51:49 PM by D.A.