Several interesting points have been made in this thread, and the observation that there are few "sure thing"-type coaches out there is sobering. I agree that there's a possibility a Galloway hiring could be great because he's been recruiting and knows the program and has a name that could resonate ... or it could be a commitment to mediocrity, in that he'd be a relative newbie coaching against a number of potential HoFers just in his own conference.
A problem I have in the thread is the blanket statements -- for example, the kids are the problem OR the coaches are the problem ... the issue is coaching OR it's recruiting. The fact is that the *program* is not getting the results many people feel it should be getting, considering resources, reputation, history and the like. There are certain realities that aren't in dispute -- not getting as many prime recruits, some highly regarded players underachieving, what seems to be an inordinately large number of kids committing and then decommitting.
Folks need to look at the big picture and determine the best ways to fix the stuff that's yielding bad results. Some elements seem fairly straightforward, like the current staff not doing enough to ensure that a kid who has committed stays committed. The solution could be as simple as making more phone calls and visits to our top commits, and/or it could mean that we work harder to flip kids who've committed somewhere else. Some things could be more problematic. I'm convinced one of the overriding issues is that college lacrosse has, and continues to, undergo changes faster than SU's program has been capable of keeping up with. The challenge: How do we fix that?
I also think, whether it plans to keep Desko or not, that the Wildhack administration needs to be drawing a blueprint for what qualifications its next coach will need to have in terms of on-field performance, recruiting ability, connections in key regions/conferences, academic results and the like. Desko won't be around forever, unless he goes all Boeheim on us. One resume that jumps out is that of Ben DeLuca. In year 2 at Delaware, he took a program that'd had six straight losing seasons before his arrival, and delivered a 10-5 season. He's a Rochester native (upstate NY, check), was DC at Duke (knows the ACC, check) and associate HC at Harvard (can recruit to selective private institutions, check), and went something like 37-11 as the head guy at Cornell (top-tier HC experience, check) before a hazing scandal in 2013 got him fired. His first Delaware team had a 3.0 GPA. His wife has CNY ties, as well. I'm not saying he'd be the be-all and end-all, but that's the kind of resume the next guy should have.
Meanwhile, Desko and the other people running SU's program ought to be doing what good leaders do in other sports, and other walks of life ... conducting a complete, sober analysis of the program's strengths and weaknesses, including using some input from some folks outside the program. IIRC, one of the reasons the Blackhawks were able to win a third Stanley Cup despite some age, injury and salary-cap issues was that they took an honest look at their program, then made and executed some tough choices.
