Had a nice conversation with a friend who will remain anonymous. If he wants to chime in, he always can.
We agreed on one important thing. Gilardi may prove to be just fine. But SB needed to reach for the stars and they didn't. Danowski would have been the home run the program has been starving for.
Imagine if the guys broadcasting the PLL said "Stony Brook coach Matt Danowski" every time he touched the ball.
Local high school coaches wanted him, alumni wanted him, there apparently are some deep-pocketed alumni who offered to help pay Danowski if needed. Do you think they do that for anyone else?
I do want to be fair to Gilardi, though. He checks off the boxes. He can coach. He can recruit. The offense will be better. SB will compete. Like I said, he may prove to be just fine. And Danowski could have sprinted for wherever after his contract was up. But so could Gilardi. Think about it, that only happens if he's massively successful, in which case we find a way to make him stay.
I know Danowski also would have vaulted the men's program back to the forefront, possibly taking some of the spotlight from the women which some think Joe Spallina might not like. I don't necessarily buy that. My answer is simple: Geno Auriemma and Jim Calhoun. They feuded until football got in the mix, but UConn benefited from having both of them.
But SB should always be reaching for the next level. Especially in sports where they can relatively easily. Lax and baseball are sports where SB can contend for national championships. That's what Spallina and Senk do, that's what everybody should be doing.