palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32811
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-02-18 01:51 PM - Post#264062
Philly.com just reported he passed away at 48 from a heart attack preparing to coach Girard College here. Really good player on that great Mark Macon Temple team that was edged by UNC in the Regional Final. Very sad.
|
LyleGold
PhD Student
Posts: 1712
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: IP Mik Kilgore
11-02-18 03:05 PM - Post#264088
In response to palestra38
Wow, that's a shock. Yeah, he was a real good player at the end of the Macon era. It was odd how Macon came in as a freshman and added enough to a really good Temple team to get them to a #1 ranking. Then they swooned (still ranked, but generally disappointing) until the very end of the Macon era when a new batch of players including Kilgore gelled around him. Palestra38 and I went to that game at the Meadowlands together and saw Macon totally outplay King Rice, but Temple barely missed out on a trip to the Final Four The following year we went to the Duke-Kentucky East Regional Final at the Spectrum which was even better.
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1899
Reg: 11-29-04
|
Re: IP Mik Kilgore
11-02-18 04:00 PM - Post#264101
In response to LyleGold
I was at Penn in the era of Mark Shakin' Bacon. He had that incredible Freshman year, but you are right about the 2nd and third year. He wasn't a multidimensional player who could make others around him better. He was a really good jump-stop shooter who could get his own from downtown and the midrange.
I recall Mik being a lanky player who started out as an awkward player but whose skills matured toward his later years. RIP, Mik.
Wow, that's a shock. Yeah, he was a real good player at the end of the Macon era. It was odd how Macon came in as a freshman and added enough to a really good Temple team to get them to a #1 ranking. Then they swooned (still ranked, but generally disappointing) until the very end of the Macon era when a new batch of players including Kilgore gelled around him. Palestra38 and I went to that game at the Meadowlands together and saw Macon totally outplay King Rice, but Temple barely missed out on a trip to the Final Four The following year we went to the Duke-Kentucky East Regional Final at the Spectrum which was even better.
|
LyleGold
PhD Student
Posts: 1712
Reg: 11-22-04
|
11-03-18 09:48 AM - Post#264130
In response to Penndemonium
I felt for a couple of years that Macon did more to hurt his team than help it. It seemed like he was constantly scoring 20 points a game while going 8 for 30 in a close loss to UMass or Rutgers. When Chaney was challenged to explain why Macon was allowed to go one on five while his teammates stood around and watched, he defiantly shot back,"What do you want me to do? I don't have anybody else."
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1899
Reg: 11-29-04
|
11-03-18 02:26 PM - Post#264141
In response to LyleGold
Chaney had some decent offenses, but it relied more on talented players than creative schemes. It is true that those middle years for Macon weren't the most talented - but the coach didn't help much.
|
UPIA1968
PhD Student
Posts: 1121
Loc: Cornwall, PA
Reg: 11-20-06
|
11-03-18 10:48 PM - Post#264159
In response to Penndemonium
Chaney was a wizard on defense and ran a principled program that helped a generation of young men. He could not, however, coach an offense. Perhaps it came from his days as a classic gunner himself.
|
LyleGold
PhD Student
Posts: 1712
Reg: 11-22-04
|
11-04-18 07:15 AM - Post#264172
In response to UPIA1968
I remember one press conference when Chaney was asked to explain how he used his big men under the basket in his offensive scheme. His response was,"You've gotta take out the garbage before you can deliver the mail." It actually seemed to make sense at the time.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4911
Reg: 02-04-06
|
11-05-18 09:06 PM - Post#264342
In response to LyleGold
I thought the rationale for Chaney's primitive offenses was that by minimizing passing he minimized turnovers, while Temple's matchup zone created these in large numbers for the opponent. Combined with strong rebounding, they could get a lot more field-goal attempts in theory. And by not requiring much offensive finesse or skill from most of his players, he could put four athletic effort guys out there who would sell out on defense and rebounding.
The obvious flaw is that you want the marginal turnover risk to equal the marginal effective scoring gain to decide whether a pass is worth it. When the former is much lower than the latter, you're not passing enough. And at a higher level, the same thing occurs for personnel choices--a little bit of defensive sacrifice for a bigger bit of offensive gain (or a small offensive sacrifice for a big defensive gain) is something you want to do.
|
