Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: The Streak

The Streak 4 weeks 2 days ago #373304

  • ghostzapper
  • ghostzapper's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Posts: 496
  • Thank you received: 329
As has been well documented Coach Mike Anderson has never had a losing season as a head coach. He is currently one of four coaches in that category who have had at least fifteen years without a losing season as a head coach.

It is debatable whether or not that streak will continue with St. John's currently at 12-7 and struggling to find wins in the tough Big East conference, He will probably need for the team to win at least four more games this year to keep that streak alive. Personally I think they will get there. The team plays hard all the time and has very little quit in them.

As for the other three coaches Mark Few at Gonzaga and Tom Izzo at Michigan State are mortal locks to keep their steeaks going this season. However the third coach Roy Williams at North Carolina's streak is definitely in jeopardy. After starting the season 5-0 and rising to be ranked to #6 in the country hard times have hit at Chapel Hill. They have lost nine of their last twelve games and are currently in last place in the ACC. They have lost their last four conference games to second divison Georgia Tech, Pittsburgh and Clemson all at home and on the road to Pittsburgh again. With most of the upper teams left on their schedule the Tar Heels may wind up below five hundred. Getting back injured Freshman pont guard Cole Anthony could help but it looks like it will still be a big struggle for William's team this year.

Given their program's arrogance and preferred status from the NCAA I can not say I am sorry to see North Carolina down in the dumps. Hopefully next year there will be only three coaches with that active streak and Mike Anderson will be one of the three.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

The Streak 4 weeks 2 days ago #373313

  • Duke of Earlington
  • Duke of Earlington's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 390
  • Thank you received: 94
No offense to the OP, but why do we keep bringing up this stupid stat? It means nothing. So if he went 18-17 on year its any different then if he went 17-18?

Out of all the stats people throw around, this mike anderson .500 stat is just awful.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Beast of the East

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

The Streak 4 weeks 2 days ago #373314

  • Spocky Ramone
  • Spocky Ramone's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 2035
  • Thank you received: 370
I read an article that stated that the fan base around Chapel Hill was claiming that “it’s no fun being a Tar Heel fan this year”.
B-O-O H-O-O

I hope you lose all your conference games this year. Except against the traitors. And Duke.
I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace; that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress - K.I.T.T., “1776”

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by Spocky Ramone.

The Streak 4 weeks 1 day ago #373347

  • stjohnnie75
  • stjohnnie75's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 781
  • Thank you received: 239

Duke of Earlington wrote: No offense to the OP, but why do we keep bringing up this stupid stat? It means nothing. So if he went 18-17 on year its any different then if he went 17-18?

Out of all the stats people throw around, this mike anderson .500 stat is just awful.


I disagree with you. Only a few coaches can say they haven’t had a losing season in 15+ years. It probably does help with recruiting.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

The Streak 4 weeks 1 day ago #373367

  • bamafan
  • bamafan's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 6206
  • Thank you received: 1895

stjohnnie75 wrote:

Duke of Earlington wrote: No offense to the OP, but why do we keep bringing up this stupid stat? It means nothing. So if he went 18-17 on year its any different then if he went 17-18?

Out of all the stats people throw around, this mike anderson .500 stat is just awful.


I disagree with you. Only a few coaches can say they haven’t had a losing season in 15+ years. It probably does help with recruiting.

Not to mention it would be a bad look if coach after 17 years of never having a losing season at 3 coaching stops has that streak immediately ended in year one at St. John's.
The following user(s) said Thank You: stjohnnie75

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

The Streak 4 weeks 1 day ago #373401

  • redmanwest
  • redmanwest's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 854
  • Thank you received: 439
It’s not a huge deal except it speaks to the kind of consistency we used to have decades ago and now hope to reacquire.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Section3, Paultzman, JohnnyFan

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

The Streak 4 weeks 8 hours ago #373458

  • JohnnyFan
  • JohnnyFan's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 3832
  • Thank you received: 2520

redmanwest wrote: It’s not a huge deal except it speaks to the kind of consistency we used to have decades ago and now hope to reacquire.


+1,000
The following user(s) said Thank You: Joe Ambrosino

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

The Streak 4 weeks 6 hours ago #373464

  • Monte
  • Monte's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 5698
  • Thank you received: 2534

bamafan wrote:

stjohnnie75 wrote:

Duke of Earlington wrote: No offense to the OP, but why do we keep bringing up this stupid stat? It means nothing. So if he went 18-17 on year its any different then if he went 17-18?

Out of all the stats people throw around, this mike anderson .500 stat is just awful.


I disagree with you. Only a few coaches can say they haven’t had a losing season in 15+ years. It probably does help with recruiting.

Not to mention it would be a bad look if coach after 17 years of never having a losing season at 3 coaching stops has that streak immediately ended in year one at St. John's.


Yeah, but it's not like he was handed a team which was expected to finish the season over .500. If we finish above .500 we should make the NIT. I would consider that a successful season. If we finish below .500, I don't feel it's any kind a dark stain on CMA's coaching record. He's still done a stellar job with these kids.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

The Streak 4 weeks 6 hours ago #373468

  • CMA TIME
  • CMA TIME's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 658
  • Thank you received: 166

Monte wrote:

bamafan wrote:

stjohnnie75 wrote:

Duke of Earlington wrote: No offense to the OP, but why do we keep bringing up this stupid stat? It means nothing. So if he went 18-17 on year its any different then if he went 17-18?

Out of all the stats people throw around, this mike anderson .500 stat is just awful.


I disagree with you. Only a few coaches can say they haven’t had a losing season in 15+ years. It probably does help with recruiting.

Not to mention it would be a bad look if coach after 17 years of never having a losing season at 3 coaching stops has that streak immediately ended in year one at St. John's.


Yeah, but it's not like he was handed a team which was expected to finish the season over .500. If we finish above .500 we should make the NIT. I would consider that a successful season. If we finish below .500, I don't feel it's any kind a dark stain on CMA's coaching record. He's still done a stellar job with these kids.


But you know the rivals would be having a good time at our expense.
Could predict the jokes: "If you don't want a losing season, don't go to sju. Just look at cma perfect record going down the drain in year one." That to me would be brutal.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

The Streak 4 weeks 4 hours ago #373473

  • Knight
  • Knight's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 5621
  • Thank you received: 1414

CMA TIME wrote:

Monte wrote:

bamafan wrote:

stjohnnie75 wrote:

Duke of Earlington wrote: No offense to the OP, but why do we keep bringing up this stupid stat? It means nothing. So if he went 18-17 on year its any different then if he went 17-18?

Out of all the stats people throw around, this mike anderson .500 stat is just awful.


I disagree with you. Only a few coaches can say they haven’t had a losing season in 15+ years. It probably does help with recruiting.

Not to mention it would be a bad look if coach after 17 years of never having a losing season at 3 coaching stops has that streak immediately ended in year one at St. John's.


Yeah, but it's not like he was handed a team which was expected to finish the season over .500. If we finish above .500 we should make the NIT. I would consider that a successful season. If we finish below .500, I don't feel it's any kind a dark stain on CMA's coaching record. He's still done a stellar job with these kids.


But you know the rivals would be having a good time at our expense.
Could predict the jokes: "If you don't want a losing season, don't go to sju. Just look at cma perfect record going down the drain in year one." That to me would be brutal.


You always know how to put a happy spin on things.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: mkras99SJUFAN2espkengmanlawmanfankranmarsOhioFanotisredmannorthKnight