Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Mar 23, 2015 13:14:31 GMT -5
The problem here seems to be that people are wanting to put on this season the burden of failures past, such that because there wasn't overachievement to compensate for prior underachievement, people are angry. But that's silly. Be mad about the 2010 and 2013 teams. Go ahead! It will take a long time to get over those. But holding this year's team accountable for those failures isn't fair. This team met expectations period. Was there a single voter in either poll that had Gtown in the top 16 for even one week all year? Why would we expect such a team to reach Sweet Sixteen? And at the deeper level there is the anxiety about being outside a Power 5 conference. That too is legitimate and raises its own problems but has nothing to do with this season. Basically the argument around here seems to be whether we should expect a) to always be the best non-Power 5 basketball program in the country, or b) to instead be competing among the best such programs if not be the best one every year. That's a pretty small area of disagreement actually. The other part is that "Power 5" conferences thing. We've now had 2 seasons in the new Big East, and based on win expectations by seed we should have expected about 5.2 last year and got 2 with no teams in the Sweet 16. This year we should have expected about 9.3 and we're on 5 with one team in the Sweet 16. All teams in the conference had the chance this and last March to decouple the notion of the Power 5 football conferences from being the same dominant 5 in basketball and have done a poor job so far. We were second in conference RPI, but college basketball is such that conference RPI is largely set before New Year's. If you want to argue that the Big East is better than the ACC because DePaul beat Stanford in November so they're not dragging down the average as much as Virginia Tech, then fine. They have five teams still playing and we have one. College basketball is on the casual sports fan's radar for about three weeks in March, and those three weeks really influence perception.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,832
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 23, 2015 13:24:07 GMT -5
Only 16 teams can make the "third" round. Georgetown was clearly not one of the 16 best teams in the nation this season. On top of that, they lost to a team that clearly was one of those top 16 teams. There's really no shame in that. I don't know why the loss to Utah should prompt serious soul-searching. I'm bummed that we lost but that's the nature of the beast. Taking care of business against EWU was my baseline expectation for this tournament based on the results of the regular season. The 2014-15 Hoyas were a tough and competitive team that was one of the best in a deep Big East. They performed well in non-conference games, as always, and entertained us all with a smackdown of Nova. The senior class was somewhat lacking in top-end talent, but they were players we could all be proud of, and the underclassmen are likely to become a formidable force next year and beyond. Thankfully, everyone passed their classes this year. Moreover, the players proved to be another group of resilient and mature Georgetown players. And I'm excited for the recruiting class (especially Govan) to arrive on campus this summer. Georgetown's basketball program is great fun to watch and a credit to the university. They perennially assemble strong teams that perform well in the Big East and make the tournament. " Expecting" more than that, in practice, means being willing to sacrifice the consistency and ethically-sound foundation of our program for a shot at more Final Fours, i.e. by trading JTIII for a stronger in-game coach with weaker ties to GU and/or more ethically dubious approaches, like our old friend Magoo. While I thrill and collapse with every Hoya win and loss like everyone else, I would not trade places with Syracuse today for all the vacated wins in the world. I really don't believe this has to be the case at all, the program can thrive without lowering it's principals or standards imo.. As has been stated many times on the board the 2014 & 15 classes are very solid(I wish they pulled a ball handler in 2015 though) and I like the targets for 2016 so far.. It's my opinion that there's plenty of academically inclined talent out there that the staff can recruit without having to go to "shady" tactics to get them.. Recruit within your lane, coach them up when they get on campus and success will follow imo..
|
|
|
Post by Ranch Dressing on Mar 23, 2015 13:46:23 GMT -5
My expectation for the Hoyas going forward is similar to my expectations the past decade. That is, be a consistent Top 25 program and make it regularly to the Sweet 16 in the NCAA tournament (recognizing that there are some up and down years along the way).
For the most part, our regular season accomplishments have met the Top 25 standard, with only a few exceptions which is to be expected from time to time.
We obviously have fallen short of the NCAA tournament standard. Our going-in seeding in several of the NCAA tournaments suggested that the committee thought we were Sweet 16 worthy.
With the way we have been recruiting well lately, I am not shifting my expectations at all. We should be back in the Sweet 16 next year if Govan is a player.
|
|
|
Post by vamosalaplaya on Mar 23, 2015 13:54:47 GMT -5
I do agree the issue is really the team being bounced from the NCAAs. The 2008 and 2013 regular seasons were terrific; both squads were legitimate Final Four contenders. And the 2010 and 2012 teams were Top 15 teams after the NCAAs.
The regular seasons have been terrific. It's the NCAAs that have been the problem.
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Mar 23, 2015 14:01:22 GMT -5
My expectation is to have more ups then downs. Plus I want everyone involved in the program to have fun, it is a game after all.
Wins will come if players are happy to come to Georgetown.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Mar 23, 2015 14:38:37 GMT -5
Also, I want to sign a few more players with names like Ya-Ya and Octavious. We are losing our D'Vauntes in a year.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,906
|
Post by Filo on Mar 23, 2015 14:38:43 GMT -5
The problem here seems to be that people are wanting to put on this season the burden of failures past, such that because there wasn't overachievement to compensate for prior underachievement, people are angry. But that's silly. Be mad about the 2010 and 2013 teams. Go ahead! It will take a long time to get over those. But holding this year's team accountable for those failures isn't fair. This team met expectations period. Was there a single voter in either poll that had Gtown in the top 16 for even one week all year? Why would we expect such a team to reach Sweet Sixteen? And at the deeper level there is the anxiety about being outside a Power 5 conference. That too is legitimate and raises its own problems but has nothing to do with this season. Basically the argument around here seems to be whether we should expect a) to always be the best non-Power 5 basketball program in the country, or b) to instead be competing among the best such programs if not be the best one every year. That's a pretty small area of disagreement actually. The other part is that "Power 5" conferences thing. We've now had 2 seasons in the new Big East, and based on win expectations by seed we should have expected about 5.2 last year and got 2 with no teams in the Sweet 16. This year we should have expected about 9.3 and we're on 5 with one team in the Sweet 16. All teams in the conference had the chance this and last March to decouple the notion of the Power 5 football conferences from being the same dominant 5 in basketball and have done a poor job so far. We were second in conference RPI, but college basketball is such that conference RPI is largely set before New Year's. If you want to argue that the Big East is better than the ACC because DePaul beat Stanford in November so they're not dragging down the average as much as Virginia Tech, then fine. They have five teams still playing and we have one. College basketball is on the casual sports fan's radar for about three weeks in March, and those three weeks really influence perception.Good point, because the issue is really perception. Many of these tournament wins are about match-ups and luck-of-the-draw, and really do not reflect conference strength. E.g. ACC had 4 of those 5 teams barely squeak by their first-round opponent - at least 3 of those games were close enough that they could have easily gone the other way. Well, that's my story and i am sticking to it for my own peace of mind, anyway.
|
|
Big Dog
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,912
|
Post by Big Dog on Mar 23, 2015 14:43:54 GMT -5
The other part is that "Power 5" conferences thing. We've now had 2 seasons in the new Big East, and based on win expectations by seed we should have expected about 5.2 last year and got 2 with no teams in the Sweet 16. This year we should have expected about 9.3 and we're on 5 with one team in the Sweet 16. All teams in the conference had the chance this and last March to decouple the notion of the Power 5 football conferences from being the same dominant 5 in basketball and have done a poor job so far. We were second in conference RPI, but college basketball is such that conference RPI is largely set before New Year's. If you want to argue that the Big East is better than the ACC because DePaul beat Stanford in November so they're not dragging down the average as much as Virginia Tech, then fine. They have five teams still playing and we have one. College basketball is on the casual sports fan's radar for about three weeks in March, and those three weeks really influence perception.Good point, because the issue is really perception. Many of these tournament wins are about match-ups and luck-of-the-draw, and really do not reflect conference strength. E.g. ACC had 4 of those 5 teams barely squeak by their first-round opponent - at least 3 of those games were close enough that they could have easily gone the other way. Well, that's my story and i am sticking to it for my own peace of mind, anyway. I think at this point until further notice all Hoyas fans would be wise for their own mental health to ignore any general media discussions and perceptions. Those may be based on stupid, small-sample-size information or they may be 100% accurate, but regardless they are unchangeable absent an uptick in tournament performance in the future. The bigger question is whether the media perception crap trickles down to recruiting. There is obviously no way to measure this. But the best way for the league to get back to being viewed as elite is for it to become a regular destination for the very best talent in the country. I think our recruiting class this past year was a start. Marquette's next year seems to be as well.
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,374
|
Post by drquigley on Mar 23, 2015 15:01:24 GMT -5
My son and I along with alumni friends went to 5 games this year. We won all 5. The Butler game was tremendously exciting and the Seton Hall game was emotionally uplifting. This is really all I expect from the Hoyas. Great games, lots of excitement, and a program we can be proud of. Just think of all the thrills JT3's teams have provided, especially in light of the Esherick train wreck. Beating Duke when they were undefeated #1, smashing Syracuse as they left the BE, the run to the Final Four. C'mon folks this has been a great ride and next year we will be going nuts for Peak and Copeland and White and Campbell and Govan. Really, for a small Catholic school school with a great academic reputation, a small alumni fan base and no real on campus basketball facilities to speak of this is as good as it gets. Lets continue to gripe about certain players and certain moves by the coach but keep sight of what we as alumni and fans have gotten out of this program over they years. HOYA SAXA!!
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,924
|
Post by NCHoya on Mar 23, 2015 15:03:52 GMT -5
The problem here seems to be that people are wanting to put on this season the burden of failures past, such that because there wasn't overachievement to compensate for prior underachievement, people are angry. But that's silly. Be mad about the 2010 and 2013 teams. Go ahead! It will take a long time to get over those. But holding this year's team accountable for those failures isn't fair. This team met expectations period. Was there a single voter in either poll that had Gtown in the top 16 for even one week all year? Why would we expect such a team to reach Sweet Sixteen? And at the deeper level there is the anxiety about being outside a Power 5 conference. That too is legitimate and raises its own problems but has nothing to do with this season. Basically the argument around here seems to be whether we should expect a) to always be the best non-Power 5 basketball program in the country, or b) to instead be competing among the best such programs if not be the best one every year. That's a pretty small area of disagreement actually. The other part is that "Power 5" conferences thing. We've now had 2 seasons in the new Big East, and based on win expectations by seed we should have expected about 5.2 last year and got 2 with no teams in the Sweet 16. This year we should have expected about 9.3 and we're on 5 with one team in the Sweet 16. All teams in the conference had the chance this and last March to decouple the notion of the Power 5 football conferences from being the same dominant 5 in basketball and have done a poor job so far. We were second in conference RPI, but college basketball is such that conference RPI is largely set before New Year's. If you want to argue that the Big East is better than the ACC because DePaul beat Stanford in November so they're not dragging down the average as much as Virginia Tech, then fine. They have five teams still playing and we have one. College basketball is on the casual sports fan's radar for about three weeks in March, and those three weeks really influence perception. I realized as the season went on the conference RPI was kind of useless since it was based on the first 10 games of the season for each team. When thinking of what the "best" conference is we should use this perception idea, meaning which conference will win the most in March. Using that as the guide, I think we could all project the ACC would be the best conference. Yes, the bottom of the ACC is crap, but the top is really good. One could easily see them getting 4-5 teams in the Sweet 16. Going forward, that is how I will measure a conference's strength since that is the way the media ultimately decides it anyway. And that is where the Big East falls short right now, having Top 16 teams that can advance. Nova deeply damaged the conference by not advancing at least to the Elite 8. Getting one win from them was a joke. The rest of the teams really were not at the same level and absent a lucky draw (Xavier) were not going to advance. We had a team or two ranked with Nova all year, but always on the periphery of the Top 25. Unfortunately, we were too reliant on a single team this season so Nova crushed the conference this season. The goal has to be not just depth but having some Top 15 type of teams. Georgetown is recruiting like it will be one of those, Nova should be one of those and hopefully every year at least one or two other teams will be one of those. Averaging 3 teams in the Sweet 16 for a few years in a row will make the BE a player against the Power 5.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 23, 2015 16:04:56 GMT -5
Last year the ACC had 6 teams in the tournament and only UVA made the Sweet 16 where they lost to Michigan State. Duke lost to Mercer. Syracuse lost to Dayton. Louisville is in now and Maryland is not. Notre Dame is up but Pitt is down and Syracuse is busted. The league as a whole wasn't really better this year but the NCAA tournament results are much better.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 23, 2015 16:06:48 GMT -5
Agree with Yaboy. Unfortunately I kind of agree with Balla in that our "shooter" recruits haven't panned out and the rising senior and junior classes are weak. DSR is the one main exceptions as he has been very good, has improved his D, has had a steady handle when needed, and can put points on the board. I think those two classes are the ones that forced JTIII to reassess his approach to talent and the past two classes seem to be on track. Jabril is a good example of a guy who was not a "shooter" but had the athleticism and work ethic to become a very reliable shooter by his late junior and senior years. I am very excited about the future and feel like we are in a really good spot with the facilities coming online. Bypass the Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, Arizona recruits and find the mix of three and four year players that can perform in March. It is what it is. Dsr is the only all BE performer in those 3 classes. That means 1 top 20 BE player in 3 years basically. Otto Porter.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,906
|
Post by Filo on Mar 23, 2015 16:20:03 GMT -5
The other part is that "Power 5" conferences thing. We've now had 2 seasons in the new Big East, and based on win expectations by seed we should have expected about 5.2 last year and got 2 with no teams in the Sweet 16. This year we should have expected about 9.3 and we're on 5 with one team in the Sweet 16. All teams in the conference had the chance this and last March to decouple the notion of the Power 5 football conferences from being the same dominant 5 in basketball and have done a poor job so far. We were second in conference RPI, but college basketball is such that conference RPI is largely set before New Year's. If you want to argue that the Big East is better than the ACC because DePaul beat Stanford in November so they're not dragging down the average as much as Virginia Tech, then fine. They have five teams still playing and we have one. College basketball is on the casual sports fan's radar for about three weeks in March, and those three weeks really influence perception. I realized as the season went on the conference RPI was kind of useless since it was based on the first 10 games of the season for each team. When thinking of what the "best" conference is we should use this perception idea, meaning which conference will win the most in March. Using that as the guide, I think we could all project the ACC would be the best conference. Yes, the bottom of the ACC is crap, but the top is really good. One could easily see them getting 4-5 teams in the Sweet 16. Going forward, that is how I will measure a conference's strength since that is the way the media ultimately decides it anyway. And that is where the Big East falls short right now, having Top 16 teams that can advance. Nova deeply damaged the conference by not advancing at least to the Elite 8. Getting one win from them was a joke. The rest of the teams really were not at the same level and absent a lucky draw (Xavier) were not going to advance. We had a team or two ranked with Nova all year, but always on the periphery of the Top 25. Unfortunately, we were too reliant on a single team this season so Nova crushed the conference this season. The goal has to be not just depth but having some Top 15 type of teams. Georgetown is recruiting like it will be one of those, Nova should be one of those and hopefully every year at least one or two other teams will be one of those. Averaging 3 teams in the Sweet 16 for a few years in a row will make the BE a player against the Power 5. I understand your point but I do quibble with some of the specifics -- I think you are selling Providence and Butler a bit short. Butler went toe-to-toe with ND and could easily have won. Providence could have made some noise but just played a terrible game (which was helped along by some awful officatin' and a home crowd for Dayton). Plus, as another poster pointed out, the ACC's performance last year was miserable. It really is a crapshoot, more so than ever with the level of talent throughout the country.
|
|
Big Dog
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,912
|
Post by Big Dog on Mar 23, 2015 16:38:44 GMT -5
Last year the ACC had 6 teams in the tournament and only UVA made the Sweet 16 where they lost to Michigan State. Duke lost to Mercer. Syracuse lost to Dayton. Louisville is in now and Maryland is not. Notre Dame is up but Pitt is down and Syracuse is busted. The league as a whole wasn't really better this year but the NCAA tournament results are much better. Right. But as we all know the ACC doesn't have to prove anything. The Big East will be measured by Final Fours. In that sense, you can see why expansion is probably necessary. The more teams you have, the more chances you have that one of them will put a Final Four team together.
|
|
|
Post by Ranch Dressing on Mar 23, 2015 16:49:45 GMT -5
Last year the ACC had 6 teams in the tournament and only UVA made the Sweet 16 where they lost to Michigan State. Duke lost to Mercer. Syracuse lost to Dayton. Louisville is in now and Maryland is not. Notre Dame is up but Pitt is down and Syracuse is busted. The league as a whole wasn't really better this year but the NCAA tournament results are much better. Right. But as we all know the ACC doesn't have to prove anything. The Big East will be measured by Final Fours. In that sense, you can see why expansion is probably necessary. The more teams you have, the more chances you have that one of them will put a Final Four team together. Bingo. We cannot be satisfied with the current conference line-up that will be labeled unfairly in down years as the conference made up of "Catholic Schools Plus Butler." We must build on our significant momentum and really make the case that we are creating a national branded conference with a best-in-breed, hoops-first culture. "This is the Big East -- Where Hoops Players Play Ball at Hoops Schools!" We should be doing a lot of work this off-season to sign up Wichita State, VCU, and others. It may not all be feasible (like the Gonzaga idea), but ultimately this is what needs to be considered immediately for the conference to solidify its status among the upper echelon of college basketball conferences going forward.
|
|
daveg023
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,331
|
Post by daveg023 on Mar 23, 2015 17:13:26 GMT -5
Last year the ACC had 6 teams in the tournament and only UVA made the Sweet 16 where they lost to Michigan State. Duke lost to Mercer. Syracuse lost to Dayton. Louisville is in now and Maryland is not. Notre Dame is up but Pitt is down and Syracuse is busted. The league as a whole wasn't really better this year but the NCAA tournament results are much better. Right. But as we all know the ACC doesn't have to prove anything. The Big East will be measured by Final Fours. In that sense, you can see why expansion is probably necessary. The more teams you have, the more chances you have that one of them will put a Final Four team together. Along these lines I've been monitoring a few Big East message boards to see what the sentiments are and came across an interesting thread on the Providence board: providence.scout.com/forums/1323-friar-talk/13688962-best-big-east-programs-next-five-yearsUniversally all members agreed that Villanova was in the best shape to lead the conference over the next five years. We ranged from 2 through 5 in others views. I guess coming off two 30+ win seasons, Villanova deserves that, but I'd like to think we are right there along with them. Furthermore (biased as it may seem), if we had their record and ranking the last two years, I feel like we would have been generating more publicity, stories, TV time, etc for the conference. Anyways, what do you guys think? I think at a minimum its us and them at the top, followed by Marquette and maybe Xavier. These are the programs with legit Final 4 hopes (granted I know Xavier has never been) and Top 10 ranking potential. I think Butler, Providence, St Johns, and Seton Hall are capable of fielding Top 25 teams every few years, but can't be expected to make too much of an impact on the national scene. DePaul and Creighton? I guess it depends on DePaul's hire and McDermott's ability to recruit someone not related to him...
|
|
|
Post by burnell on Mar 23, 2015 17:38:43 GMT -5
WHERE GOING TO WIN THE BIG EAST CONFRENCE NEXT YEAR.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Mar 23, 2015 17:55:26 GMT -5
Right. But as we all know the ACC doesn't have to prove anything. The Big East will be measured by Final Fours. In that sense, you can see why expansion is probably necessary. The more teams you have, the more chances you have that one of them will put a Final Four team together. Along these lines I've been monitoring a few Big East message boards to see what the sentiments are and came across an interesting thread on the Providence board: providence.scout.com/forums/1323-friar-talk/13688962-best-big-east-programs-next-five-yearsUniversally all members agreed that Villanova was in the best shape to lead the conference over the next five years. We ranged from 2 through 5 in others views. I guess coming off two 30+ win seasons, Villanova deserves that, but I'd like to think we are right there along with them. Furthermore (biased as it may seem), if we had their record and ranking the last two years, I feel like we would have been generating more publicity, stories, TV time, etc for the conference. Anyways, what do you guys think? I think at a minimum its us and them at the top, followed by Marquette and maybe Xavier. These are the programs with legit Final 4 hopes (granted I know Xavier has never been) and Top 10 ranking potential. I think Butler, Providence, St Johns, and Seton Hall are capable of fielding Top 25 teams every few years, but can't be expected to make too much of an impact on the national scene. DePaul and Creighton? I guess it depends on DePaul's hire and McDermott's ability to recruit someone not related to him... I think an interesting corollary to that is the question of which teams do we want to lead the conference, in order to generate the maximum publicity, respect, etc. I think Georgetown and Villanova definitely are on that list. St. John's and DePaul would be high on it as well, but not realistic right now. Seton Hall probably is better positioned than St. John's, but if I had my choice of which one would become resurgent, it would have to be St. John's. I'd like to see Providence put together some sustained success, especially with the disaster that is Boston College and UConn stuck in the AAC.
|
|
richfame
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,266
|
Post by richfame on Mar 23, 2015 19:33:04 GMT -5
In my opinion the Tournament has become the main indicator of wheather weve had a good or poor season. The problem is if we have a great regular season and lose in the first round its an awful season(villanova) or if you have a down season yet make the tourney and get into the sweet 16 its a great season(ucla). For georgetown if we dont make the sweet 16 its a poor season. Know one remembers our great regular seasons if we flame out in the tourney!!! Yet we can all remember 2007 when we made the final four. We all remember the journey there from Jeff Greens near walk but awesome shot against vandy to beating UNC! This is what our team has to get back to. There is more than one way to accomplish this goal too.
We can go the wichita state route and recruit good players that are going to stick around for 4 years or we can recruit 3 great players every year and deal with early departures but reap the benefits of deep runs. Either way is fine with me as long as wel can land in the sweet 16 or beyond.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2015 19:33:32 GMT -5
It is what it is. Dsr is the only all BE performer in those 3 classes. That means 1 top 20 BE player in 3 years basically. Otto Porter. Whose that?? Btw I’m talking about graduating players… Otto’s been long gone, Greg prob would have been All BE if he would have stayed eligible… Neither were around last year or this year
|
|