Good for him.

But I don't think every Porter recruit necessitates a new thread. Unless Loyola was actively involved in the recruitment of said recruit.

lets wait and see, the kid hasnt been to Oklahoma yet.

Congrats?

How do you say “I hope you enjoy your non-direct flight to Oklahoma, and eventually losing to Loyola in the Tournament” in German?

Porter recruit ??? Who cares ???

Not sure if you heard, we got a new coach.

The truth of the matter is, Porter was our coach for 10 years, brought us multiple conference championships, a CBI title, a Sweet Sixteen, a victory over a #1 NCAA tournament seed, A final Four, 3 different conference Players of the Year, and 2 end-of-season Top 25 finishes. He wasn't fired, and he didn't bolt at the FIRST opportunity -- so in my mind, he's a LOYOLA guy who should be respected by our fanbase. We can all disagree with his decision to leave (I do...), but it would be foolish to ignore his contribution or dismiss it.

If Porter does well, and Drew does well (and maybe leaves), it only makes Loyola look like an extremely attractive place for up-and-coming coaches, and it will only increase the prestige of our program. Also -- you never know! Maybe in 5 years, Drew takes us to 3 or 4 tournaments and decides to jump to a bigger school -- while Porter dominates at Oklahoma and is hailed as a genius - we're looking for a new coach... and there's Clayton Custer looking for his first head coaching job! Are we not going to want a Loyola great who is a Porter guy as our next head coach to continue the tradition and "culture"? I would definitely be excited for that if it turns out Porter doesn't fail on "the big stage."

I'm still bitter about Porter leaving, and I will be for a while UNTIL Drew gets us another regular season title and/or gets us back to the NCAA tournament. If that happens this year (or next), I'll harbor no ill will over Porter leaving. I'm just sad because COVID gave Porter AND US a chance this year to be a national championship contender, in my opinion, and THAT's what makes me the most bitter. I still believe that if Lon Kruger didn't retire, there was no other place for Porter to go this year and if he had stayed, I'm 100% convinced he could have kept Krut for 1 more year. If he did that, I think we would have been a top 10 or top 15 team, ran through the Valley, and Loyola basketball would be catapulted into a coveted destination for recruits. I also think -- if Porter made another deep run this year and he re-committed, Loyola may have become "Chicago's Big East Team," with an invite to join. I'll never not wonder what might have been this year....

I will say this though -- while I respect Porter Moser, my concern is that he cannot replicate the success he had at Loyola at a "Big Time" school in the Big-12 like Oklahoma. Can he recruit the right type of players and not be tempted by the "stars"? Porter didn't win at Loyola with superstars or 4+ star recruits like his most recent acquisition. Porter's success came from HUMBLE guys who didn't believe they had an easy, green light to the NBA. Milton Doyle and Clayton Custer were humbled by their experiences at "Big" schools... Aundre Jackson had to claw his way up to a mid-major D1 school from the JUCO ranks (same as Clemons). Krutwig's best offers were us and Ball State. Williamson, coming out of the Chicago Public League, did not get high major offers. Marques Townes was a three-star recruit whose best offer in high school was Fairleigh Dickinson (who?). When you look at it, Porter's most HIGHLY TOUTED recruit at Loyola was Marquis Kennedy - a player i think a majority of us can agree on was under-utilized during Porter's time at Loyola. I might be wrong, but i think Kennedy leaves is Porter remained our coach.

My point is -- Porter was able to win with humble guys who didn't necessarily have big egos, and were willing to listen, buy in, and sacrifice scoring and the spotlight for the good of the team. All of them were wiling to PLAY TEAM DEFENSE, which - let's not kid ourselves - is the reason we've been able to equalize the talent gap against Florida, Miami, Tennessee, Kansas State, Michigan, Georgia Tech, and Illinois. We played SMARTER under Porter Moser against "Big" teams - we were never more "talented," as individuals. NEVER. One of the most impressive things to me about what Porter did with Krutwig has nothing to do with the numbers we are all impressed by -- it was the fact that, despite being undersized for a center, "pudgy" for a majority of his career, and "slow," in 4 YEARS, he fouled out of the game just ONCE that i can recall. The kid was disciplined as hell to keep himself in games. The question is -- can Porter coach "blue chip" athletes with presumed egos and entitlement? Can he convince offensive juggernauts to not look for their shot immediately every time they get the ball? Can he convince them that team DEFENSE is they key to winning and not trying to run other teams out of the gym? OR is he willing to alter HIS VISION of what he believes needs to be done to win, and adapt to his personnel at a different "level" of college basketball? THAT'S what I'm most interested to see in Porter this year and I why i actually care and am interested about his recruits and what he does.

As much fun as it is to think about the last 5 years about Loyola basketball, I can't forget the first 5 years of Porter's tenure. Porter didn't adapt a system to his players. Rather, Porter implemented a system and stuck with it until he got the players he needed to make it work. He's not an "adaptive" coach. Porter lost A TON of games and ran off A TON of players to implement his vision. He got leeway from his AD, leeway from the fans, and most importantly, leeway from the players he was able to keep around. I'm not saying Loyola was a winner because players like Williamson, Jackson, Richardson, and Townes bought into his Buill**it. I'm not saying it was bulls**t either. I'm saying, Porter was able to win with humble players that either adapt and trust his system, or else their college (and basketball careers) was likely all-but-over. So my question is - can Porter get "blue chip," 4 star/5 star athletes who are looking to make a name for themselves NOW, to unequivocally buy in to his system, play defense, make the extra pass, etc.? Then factor in the new factor individual BRANDING element that's now in college basketball -- a player like Lucas Williamson at Oklahoma scoring 4 points and playing hard-nosed defense probably doesn't get him an endorsement deal for a free 2-year lease on a BMW 7-series at the local Norman, Oklahoma dealership...but a 20 point average (which we know Lucas is capable of doing if that was his goal each game) just might, right? How could that not factor into an 18-year-old, 4-star, big-time recruit's mind when he's on a campus in a huge town that only cares about one thing - OKLAHOMA UNIVERSITY. And how is Porter going to handle having to sit talent...and deal with the fan/booster backlash for doing it?

I love college basketball, and specifically LOYOLA basketball. I'm getting excited for the season, so i apologize for the long-winded post. Let's not kid ourselves though -- if you are reading this message board - you are at least MILDLY interested in what Porter Moser does this season, and beyond... I'll definitely be watching.

I'm pretty firmly in the camp of the first few respondents. Porter isnt Loyola's coach, we don't play Oklahoma and we don't recruit the same kids...there is very little reason for us to still be talking about the guy on this board. It reeks of the divorced guy who cant get over his ex. We're a good program, we have actual Loyola stuff to be excited about and interested in...I wish we could just leave sleeping dogs alone with the Porter stuff. Do we really need to reopen everything each time some little something happens at Oklahoma?

Just a few quick comments.

First, Toledo: one of the best posts ever written about this situation.
Years ago when we hired coaches it was mentioned if they made the program a winner and they left we would be happy and grateful to that coach.
Lets face it we are used to shxxcanning coaches and not beING shixxcaned. So in this situation Loyola's best offer was not good enough and so he left. Loyola was shxxcanned.
It was a different situation and left some bitterness. That is only natural Kind of like having a daughter dumped by her boyfriend who is now dating a beauty contest winner.
It happens.

Second: the true mark of great leadership is leaving the position in better shape than when you got it.
Had Porter taken the Vegas, Arkansas or St. John job years ago, the program probably would have been decimated as key new recruits would likely have opted out.
Not so with Porter taking the Oklahome job. The program is in fine shape with Drew Valentine and a cupboard that is full. Credit that in part to the leadership of Steve Watson.
At the tip off luncheon today Drew Valentine mentioned there were 430 senior class players who entered the portal and chose other schools. Loyola had four and they all stayed. Goes to show you how they feel about the program and Drew. This team could easily have nine players as starters. Drew's challenge will be to use that talent to the best effect for results for players and team. In addition I do not believe any momentum was lost on recruiting.
Attendees at the luncheon had the opportunity to meet the new assistants. I came away very impressed.
I also have been impressed that Steve Watson brought in an older former Drew coach as a mentor for Drew.
Every coach needs a "whisperer", as I call it,to tell him what alternative decisions are available or that a decision is a bad one. Porter's personality was so strong I never had the sense that he had that "whisperer".
I have heard that Porter sometimes blames himself for losing the Final Four game against Michigan. I never asked why he felt that way but maybe if he had a "whisperer" he would have made a different set of decisions.

Third, Toledo is spot on about Oklahoma. It is a completely different paradigm than Loyola. While Porter is somewhat shielded by the football program and its rabid following, he still has a legacy to live up to. A legacy of success. and he is also coaching now against a set of coaches like Huggins and Self who have been around the block. Lets see how he stands up to that competition. There also will be no element of surprise in the Big 12/SEC. Loyola snuck up on a lot of teams who experienced the "arrogance of certainty" that precedes many upsets.
Porter also has to go after a different type of recruit. While guard play is always important the Big 12 and SEC require good big men and a lot of them. Lets see if he can attract and retain that type of player.
While Krutwig, Ingram Williamson were home grown, Custer, Townes, Jackson, Uguak were not. And today the new paradigm of endorsement money and transfer through a portal have removed the ability to using benching as a long term weapon.
Further if you look I think you will find several name coaches who left mid major school and flopped in making the leap to the "big time". Time will tell if Porter can do it.

Fourth and finally Porter's leaving hurt for a bit but the letters on the uniform say "Loyola' and not "Moser."
Both Loyola and Porter benefited from the relationship. Porter saved his career and took the opportunity that presented itself. There are also negative experiences that Porter contended with over his ten year tenure.The lack of leadership when Grace Calhoun left and Steve Watson was hired led to many situations where Porter kept the ship afloat at personal sacrifice. Also during the pandemic, I do not know if he took a paycut like all the employees did but my guess would be "yes". No such problems would EVER exist at Oklahoma.
As for Oklahoma as a Chicagoan I find it "interesting" That Norman OK had that much appeal. Twenty miles from the mecca of Oklahoma City is not the same as Winnetka is to Chicago. In Chicago Porter could have coached another 10-15 years and enjoyed continued adulation and respect. I doubt if in Oklahoma he will throw out any first pitches, sing the 7th inning stretch song or have a ten year membership in the 1914 club at Wrigley.
But I think one cannot underestimate the competitive drive this man has. Most other coaches would have wilted and failed. Porter kept going no matter what and I respect that. He is a man who was kicked around in the past at other schools and I suspect he has an inner desire to prove to others that he is the best. I respect that.

And so he left Loyola. The optics of the departure were not great. A quick fast sudden exit and announcement.
Exiting a charter jet rapped in an Oklahoma crimson and cream flag, Comments about a legacy of achieving metal and not only hoping to, saying he was now "home";all left a bad taste. In the age of instant media attention, I can cut him slack on that. Those were optics for his new audience.

My only negative feeling was when he allegedly said, he would not come into the Gentile to play the Ramblers. That seemed hypocritical but I never heard it first hand and if it is true it is really a small matter.
For here is a man who restored Loyola basketball to prominence. It will be up to a new generation of leadership to sustain it.
I look forward to the day in the future when the Final Four team is honored and Porter returns for the event. And whether the Sooners ever play in the Gentile or not, I will proudly stand and applaud Porter for what he did for Loyola.
So while I will watch what the Sooners do, I will not obsess over it for as the expression goes:
"EACH AGE IS A DREAM THAT IS DYING BUT A NEW ONE COMING TO BIRTH!"
Let the new season and era begin and if you missed the tip off luncheon, I thought it was the best ever.

I'm a bit confused by this thread. I think we have all expressed our feelings about Porter in prior threads, good and bad. Most of these thoughts are re-hashed. My point is simply we do not need a new thread for everything Porter does. Maybe we start a new "megathread" for all things Porter/Oklahoma related. But this is a Loyola board. And we are a better team right now.