|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 25, 2017 11:56:19 GMT -5
Please explain then how our most unsuccessful stretch came playing in essentially a new conference with new teams? And we won the final year regular season championship in the league we had played in with the same coach for 9 years? We haven't used JTIII's Princeton for 5 years, we've been using some weird hybrid mess. Either way, he point is now moot. It is is asinine to suggest our struggles are because teams suddenly figured out our offense and utilizing a 4 minute highlight video of every back door pass is the JTIII's most efficient offensive game at Georgetown as an accurate representation for how it "used" to be defended is absurd propaganda. If they screw up this hire( which seems likely given the current options), I would bet dollars to donuts, 3 years from now there will be a lot of nostalgia for that offense and a realization the grass is likely the same color on the other side. Like I said, whatever you call it it is obvious it wasn't working. And it still featured that ugly turnaround dribble by the guard, the working through a big man, and lots of movement and cuts to the hoop, all of which have failed miserably the last three years. And yes it was a highlight film but we saw in that film more successful backdoor layups in one game than I believe we saw all year the last two years. Don't know why it took the old BE teams so long to catch on but for whatever reason the new BE teams have been on to us from the beginning. And yes the discussion is moot. But whatever happens down the road I pray that I never see that ridiculous turnaround dribble at the top of the key by the guard initiating our offense. Sigh. The spin-dribble is simply a trigger -- a sign to everyone else on the court to initiate the play. A way of doing it that doesn't require a verbal cue (which may be hard to hear) or put a hand in the air (which may be harder to execute under pressure. The aesthetic is irrelevant to me. I want success.
|
|
|
Post by theicon on Mar 25, 2017 12:02:54 GMT -5
Need to go after Smart. Could dominate Big East in 2 years, and could bring Matt Coleman with him if Waters still leaves. Would have success recruiting DMV, Philly, Richmond, NC, Tidewater, and Texas
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Mar 25, 2017 13:38:29 GMT -5
Wilson accomplished his mission: we are talking about him. True, but I think unlike other topics he's actually got an opinion here that's formed based on direct experience covering the Georgetown beat. I think you can dismiss most of the hot take industry (Cowherd, Le Batard, Whitlock, Around the Horn, etc), but Wilbon's actually been around the program.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,553
|
Post by DanMcQ on Mar 25, 2017 13:50:03 GMT -5
Wilson accomplished his mission: we are talking about him. True, but I think unlike other topics he's actually got an opinion here that's formed based on direct experience covering the Georgetown beat. I think you can dismiss most of the hot take industry (Cowherd, Le Batard, Whitlock, Around the Horn, etc), but Wilbon's actually been around the program. I agree… Particularly Svrlunga from the Post attended only one game this year then never showed up at another game or on campus again. Just noticed that the dread iPhone auto correct got a hold of Wilbon… Have to go back and fix that.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,910
|
Post by Filo on Mar 25, 2017 13:55:33 GMT -5
Wilson accomplished his mission: we are talking about him. True, but I think unlike other topics he's actually got an opinion here that's formed based on direct experience covering the Georgetown beat. I think you can dismiss most of the hot take industry (Cowherd, Le Batard, Whitlock, Around the Horn, etc), but Wilbon's actually been around the program. Or an opinion formed based on some type of loyalty to the Thompson family. His logic and reasoning is awful. He wants to denigrate the program and essentially say we can't get a "great" coach and should be satisfied with the status quo. But if we can't get a great "coach" then he is denigrating JTIII, since the program managed to get him.
|
|
joey0403p
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by joey0403p on Mar 25, 2017 16:49:36 GMT -5
Wilson accomplished his mission: we are talking about him. True, but I think unlike other topics he's actually got an opinion here that's formed based on direct experience covering the Georgetown beat. I think you can dismiss most of the hot take industry (Cowherd, Le Batard, Whitlock, Around the Horn, etc), but Wilbon's actually been around the program. I don't disagree about the hot take crew, but Wilbon hasn't covered the team since at minimum he left the post, which was (2010). And even before that he was covering national stories for the post and pti. I love Wilbon - but his tweet was off base in my opinion.
|
|
joey0403p
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by joey0403p on Mar 25, 2017 16:49:47 GMT -5
Wilson accomplished his mission: we are talking about him. True, but I think unlike other topics he's actually got an opinion here that's formed based on direct experience covering the Georgetown beat. I think you can dismiss most of the hot take industry (Cowherd, Le Batard, Whitlock, Around the Horn, etc), but Wilbon's actually been around the program. I don't disagree about the hot take crew, but Wilbon hasn't covered the team since at minimum he left the post, which was (2010). And even before that he was covering national stories for the post and pti. I love Wilbon - but his tweet was off base in my opinion.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Mar 25, 2017 17:52:12 GMT -5
Please explain then how our most unsuccessful stretch came playing in essentially a new conference with new teams? And we won the final year regular season championship in the league we had played in with the same coach for 9 years? We haven't used JTIII's Princeton for 5 years, we've been using some weird hybrid mess. Either way, he point is now moot. It is is asinine to suggest our struggles are because teams suddenly figured out our offense and utilizing a 4 minute highlight video of every back door pass is the JTIII's most efficient offensive game at Georgetown as an accurate representation for how it "used" to be defended is absurd propaganda. If they screw up this hire( which seems likely given the current options), I would bet dollars to donuts, 3 years from now there will be a lot of nostalgia for that offense and a realization the grass is likely the same color on the other side. Like I said, whatever you call it it is obvious it wasn't working. And it still featured that ugly turnaround dribble by the guard, the working through a big man, and lots of movement and cuts to the hoop, all of which have failed miserably the last three years. And yes it was a highlight film but we saw in that film more successful backdoor layups in one game than I believe we saw all year the last two years. Don't know why it took the old BE teams so long to catch on but for whatever reason the new BE teams have been on to us from the beginning. And yes the discussion is moot. But whatever happens down the road I pray that I never see that ridiculous turnaround dribble at the top of the key by the guard initiating our offense. Other teams didn't change what they were doing... we did.
|
|
This Just In
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Bold Prediction: The Hoyas will win at least 1 BE game in 2023.
Posts: 10,592
|
Post by This Just In on Mar 25, 2017 22:21:33 GMT -5
Please explain then how our most unsuccessful stretch came playing in essentially a new conference with new teams? And we won the final year regular season championship in the league we had played in with the same coach for 9 years? We haven't used JTIII's Princeton for 5 years, we've been using some weird hybrid mess. Either way, he point is now moot. It is is asinine to suggest our struggles are because teams suddenly figured out our offense and utilizing a 4 minute highlight video of every back door pass is the JTIII's most efficient offensive game at Georgetown as an accurate representation for how it "used" to be defended is absurd propaganda. If they screw up this hire( which seems likely given the current options), I would bet dollars to donuts, 3 years from now there will be a lot of nostalgia for that offense and a realization the grass is likely the same color on the other side. Like I said, whatever you call it it is obvious it wasn't working. And it still featured that ugly turnaround dribble by the guard, the working through a big man, and lots of movement and cuts to the hoop, all of which have failed miserably the last three years. And yes it was a highlight film but we saw in that film more successful backdoor layups in one game than I believe we saw all year the last two years. Don't know why it took the old BE teams so long to catch on but for whatever reason the new BE teams have been on to us from the beginning. And yes the discussion is moot. But whatever happens down the road I pray that I never see that ridiculous turnaround dribble at the top of the key by the guard initiating our offense. 1. The Old Big East had an unbalanced schedule 2. NBE coaches will make the adjustment from 1st to 2nd game vs JTIII and thus weaknesses in his planning will show up 2. OBE had more bottom feeders (DePaul, St. Johns, Rutgers, S. Florida, Providence, Seton Hall) would fluctuate in and out with a top tier from year to year Make no mistakes the book was out in the NCAAT with coaches: 1. Create an uptempo game 2. Isolate Hoyas guards on the perimeter (as they are susceptible to being beaten to the rim) 3. Get a lead and force the Hoyas to play catch up 4. Force JTIII to make in game adjustments [New Big East Record in "close games" (5-points or less, or OT): 10-18 (.357)]
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Mar 26, 2017 7:29:16 GMT -5
Like I said, whatever you call it it is obvious it wasn't working. And it still featured that ugly turnaround dribble by the guard, the working through a big man, and lots of movement and cuts to the hoop, all of which have failed miserably the last three years. And yes it was a highlight film but we saw in that film more successful backdoor layups in one game than I believe we saw all year the last two years. Don't know why it took the old BE teams so long to catch on but for whatever reason the new BE teams have been on to us from the beginning. And yes the discussion is moot. But whatever happens down the road I pray that I never see that ridiculous turnaround dribble at the top of the key by the guard initiating our offense. 1. The Old Big East had an unbalanced schedule 2. NBE coaches will make the adjustment from 1st to 2nd game vs JTIII and thus weaknesses in his planning will show up 2. OBE had more bottom feeders (DePaul, St. Johns, Rutgers, S. Florida, Providence, Seton Hall) would fluctuate in and out with a top tier from year to year Make no mistakes the book was out in the NCAAT with coaches: 1. Create an uptempo game 2. Isolate Hoyas guards on the perimeter (as they are susceptible to being beaten to the rim) 3. Get a lead and force the Hoyas to play catch up 4. Force JTIII to make in game adjustments [New Big East Record in "close games" (5-points or less, or OT): 10-18 (.357)] NCAA's Freedom of Movement rules were issued in May 2013. Added to in May 2015. Just looking at the win/loss records, it sure looks like this was at the root of the problem not coaches figuring out JTIII.
|
|
This Just In
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Bold Prediction: The Hoyas will win at least 1 BE game in 2023.
Posts: 10,592
|
Post by This Just In on Mar 26, 2017 10:35:27 GMT -5
1. The Old Big East had an unbalanced schedule 2. NBE coaches will make the adjustment from 1st to 2nd game vs JTIII and thus weaknesses in his planning will show up 2. OBE had more bottom feeders (DePaul, St. Johns, Rutgers, S. Florida, Providence, Seton Hall) would fluctuate in and out with a top tier from year to year Make no mistakes the book was out in the NCAAT with coaches: 1. Create an uptempo game 2. Isolate Hoyas guards on the perimeter (as they are susceptible to being beaten to the rim) 3. Get a lead and force the Hoyas to play catch up 4. Force JTIII to make in game adjustments [New Big East Record in "close games" (5-points or less, or OT): 10-18 (.357)] NCAA's Freedom of Movement rules were issued in May 2013. Added to in May 2015. Just looking at the win/loss records, it sure looks like this was at the root of the problem not coaches figuring out JTIII. Let me 1st say, I just want to know what you think. Below is information that formed my opinion that coaches figured out JTIII's coaching weaknesses over an extended time period The rule changes helped to exponentially speed up the deterioration of the basketball program, but there were are already chinks in the armor. Though the NCAA's Freedom of Movement rules would affect JTIII's ability to play defense, it should not affect the offense Offensive Efficiency Rankings 2013/14- 84 (NIT) 2014/15- 52 (NCAA) 2015/16- 133 (No Bid) 2016/17- 152 (No Bid) Sticking with prior to the rule changes do you have a theory for the NCCAT/NIT record from 2008-2013 of (2-5): 1. 2 wins (Maryland-Baltimore County and Belmont) 2. 3 double digit season ending losses in a 4 year period from 2010-2013 (#14 Ohio, #11 VCU, #15 FCGU) JTIII has failed to win consecutive games in the BET/NCAA/NIT in the years of 2011, 2012, 2013 (this streak is currently on going, post rule changes)
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Mar 26, 2017 11:27:21 GMT -5
NCAA's Freedom of Movement rules were issued in May 2013. Added to in May 2015. Just looking at the win/loss records, it sure looks like this was at the root of the problem not coaches figuring out JTIII. Let me 1st say, I just want to know what you think. Below is information that formed my opinion that coaches figured out JTIII's coaching weaknesses over an extended time period The rule changes helped to exponentially speed up the deterioration of the basketball program, but there were are already chinks in the armor. Though the NCAA's Freedom of Movement rules would affect JTIII's ability to play defense, it should not affect the offense Offensive Efficiency Rankings 2013/14- 84 (NIT) 2014/15- 52 (NCAA) 2015/16- 133 (No Bid) 2016/17- 152 (No Bid) Sticking with prior to the rule changes do you have a theory for the NCCAT/NIT record from 2008-2013 of (2-5): 1. 2 wins (Maryland-Baltimore County and Belmont) 2. 3 double digit season ending losses in a 4 year period from 2010-2013 (#14 Ohio, #11 VCU, #15 FCGU) JTIII has failed to win consecutive games in the BET/NCAA/NIT in the years of 2011, 2012, 2013 (this streak is currently on going, post rule changes) The offense he ran was best and most effective against man to man defense. Think back to the most of the highest points. Duke. UNC. Nova in the blizzard. New rules made it pretty hard to play man to man. Or at least you couldn't do it for long without getting into serious foul trouble. Most teams switched to a zone or pack the line type system. If more teams are playing zone and pack the line defenses, the lane is clogged, more cutters are getting bumped and held. It severely limits the advantages that the offenses JT3 was running had. Moreover those defenses benefited teams with agile possession dominant guards who could find the seams. Something his teams lacked. As for tournament games, I'm not sure how that shows teams figured him out. Wouldn't BE record be the most persuasive? Those are the teams that saw it the most. Are you suggesting that only those tournament teams that had a week to prepare were able to figure out everything from tape study but teams who played a home and away for years couldn't? That makes no sense to me. My point isn't that the rule changes were the only factor. I just think it was critical. His failure to adjust was at the heart of everything. Couple that with a few seasons of whiffing on the recruiting front and he was doomed. His misses there were two fold. He failed to land the ball handler he needed to run his system AND to benefit from the rule changes. Plus the players that he did land in his last best class all failed to pan out. That sealed his fate.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,420
|
Post by the_way on Mar 26, 2017 11:28:44 GMT -5
There are 2 things at play here.
1) The Regular Season.
2) NCAA performance.
The Big East tournament is a mixed bag. For those who are on the bubble, it is meaningful. For those who are dominant during that particular season and won it, they want to continue their dominance in the BET. For most teams, the success in the BET isn't going to make or break you.
Back to the regular season. III's lack of recent success gets back down to talent. The talent had dwindled. When you don't have a backcourt (literally no backcourt), it is going to be hard to win games. That was his weakness. He lacked the ability to manage and build a roster. Recruit personnel that fit. His greatest success in the NCAA tournament had rosters he did not entirely recruit, had some NBA talent, and the personnel fit.
Now also for the NCAA tournament, the JTIII opponents are always throwing out the low seeds of VCU and FCGU or even Davidson to discredit III. To be fair, all 3 of those teams went to at least the Sweet Sixteen.
The Ohio game was the only game to gripe about. But Ohio exposed another problem of III's recruiting over the years, lack of quick players and athleticism. The Ohio game was before the rule changes. We couldn't defend them. Too slow-footed.
It gets back down to players and fundamentals. When you have talent and your players are fundamentally sound,you can run just about any scheme you want. The talent dwindled under III's watch, and so did the basic basketball fundamentals.
Recruiting was III's undoing.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,600
|
Post by guru on Mar 26, 2017 11:32:04 GMT -5
There are 2 things at play here. 1) The Regular Season. 2) NCAA performance. The Big East tournament is a mixed bag. For those who are on the bubble, it is meaningful. For those who are dominant during that particular season and won it, they want to continue their dominance in the BET. For most teams, the success in the BET isn't going to make or break you. Back to the regular season. III's lack of recent success gets back down to talent. The talent had dwindled. When you don't have a backcourt (literally no backcourt), it is going to be hard to win games. That was his weakness. He lacked the ability to manage and build a roster. Recruit personnel that fit. His greatest success in the NCAA tournament had rosters he did not entirely recruit, had some NBA talent, and the personnel fit. Now also for the NCAA tournament, the JTIII opponents are always throwing out the low seeds of VCU and FCGU or even Davidson to discredit III. To be fair, all 3 of those teams went to at least the Sweet Sixteen. The Ohio game was the only game to gripe about. But Ohio exposed another problem of III's recruiting over the years, lack of quick players and athleticism. The Ohio game was before the rule changes. We couldn't defend them. Too slow-footed. It gets back down to players and fundamentals. When you have talent and your players are fundamentally sound,you can run just about any scheme you want. The talent dwindled under III's watch, and so did the basic basketball fundamentals. Recruiting was III's undoing. Doesn't matter anymore
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,420
|
Post by the_way on Mar 26, 2017 11:33:42 GMT -5
There are 2 things at play here. 1) The Regular Season. 2) NCAA performance. The Big East tournament is a mixed bag. For those who are on the bubble, it is meaningful. For those who are dominant during that particular season and won it, they want to continue their dominance in the BET. For most teams, the success in the BET isn't going to make or break you. Back to the regular season. III's lack of recent success gets back down to talent. The talent had dwindled. When you don't have a backcourt (literally no backcourt), it is going to be hard to win games. That was his weakness. He lacked the ability to manage and build a roster. Recruit personnel that fit. His greatest success in the NCAA tournament had rosters he did not entirely recruit, had some NBA talent, and the personnel fit. Now also for the NCAA tournament, the JTIII opponents are always throwing out the low seeds of VCU and FCGU or even Davidson to discredit III. To be fair, all 3 of those teams went to at least the Sweet Sixteen. The Ohio game was the only game to gripe about. But Ohio exposed another problem of III's recruiting over the years, lack of quick players and athleticism. The Ohio game was before the rule changes. We couldn't defend them. Too slow-footed. It gets back down to players and fundamentals. When you have talent and your players are fundamentally sound,you can run just about any scheme you want. The talent dwindled under III's watch, and so did the basic basketball fundamentals. Recruiting was III's undoing. Doesn't matter anymore The irony.
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,382
|
Post by drquigley on Mar 26, 2017 12:27:39 GMT -5
I'm sorry but watching the Hoyas for the last few years there was always the feeling that our opponents had us figured out, especially those that had played us a few times. It was painful watching our guys try to run an offense that opponents defenses were built around stopping. Like I said earlier, in how many BE games over the past 3 years have you seen more than one or two successful back door cuts and baskets? I bet our ratio of turnovers to successful baskets on these cuts was 2 or 3 to 1. Plus, it was just boring, unexciting basketball. What ever happened to fast break points? Some of the most exciting plays are off fast breaks. Pryor's unbelievable dunk was off a semi-fast break. But I guess if you play lousy defense, don't force turnovers and stink at rebounding you don't get many fast break opportunities. Look, I think we all agree that we needed a change. But many of us felt that we needed a change not just because we weren't winning but because our style of play was boring, ergo the pining for Shaka Smart.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,420
|
Post by the_way on Mar 26, 2017 12:43:26 GMT -5
Just win. We were boring when we won too. We just stopped winning.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 26, 2017 13:02:04 GMT -5
I'm sorry but watching the Hoyas for the last few years there was always the feeling that our opponents had us figured out, especially those that had played us a few times. It was painful watching our guys try to run an offense that opponents defenses were built around stopping. Like I said earlier, in how many BE games over the past 3 years have you seen more than one or two successful back door cuts and baskets? I bet our ratio of turnovers to successful baskets on these cuts was 2 or 3 to 1. Plus, it was just boring, unexciting basketball. What ever happened to fast break points? Some of the most exciting plays are off fast breaks. Pryor's unbelievable dunk was off a semi-fast break. But I guess if you play lousy defense, don't force turnovers and stink at rebounding you don't get many fast break opportunities. Look, I think we all agree that we needed a change. But many of us felt that we needed a change not just because we weren't winning but because our style of play was boring, ergo the pining for Shaka Smart. I do think that the freedom of movement rule changes greatly impacted JT3's teams and his ability to put a winning product on the floor. I think this was most evident in our fouls and defense. I don't think it impacted us a whole lot on offense - I really think our offensive players simply haven't been at the level they need to be which is more of a recruiting issue than anything else. As far as this narrative about other teams figuring us out - it really doesn't make sense. First of all, the system JT3 ran and had success with in 2007 and that era didn't even resemble what we were doing the last few seasons. Second, the Princeton system is basically a motion based offense. Motion based offenses are successful at other college programs and the NBA. Perhaps there are specific aspects of the Princeton system that are less than ideal, but if you put high quality players and shooters in the system, and it would succeed. It's a basic tenet of the Princeton system that you need 5 shooters on the floor. We haven't had that for years, which is why I suspect JT3 did go away from the Princeton type principles he used more directly in the mid 2000s. A successful offense is not predicated on surprising your opponent, it's predicated on executing well. I mean, tons of teams run offenses with tons of pick and rolls, pick and pops, etc. These are not novel offensive concepts, and every defense in the country expects to see things like that. Yet they are successful. As far as "excitement" for me, excitement equals winning. Plenty of coaches out there play slowly - Villanova and UVA most notably - and I would be happy with a slower system if it led to wins.
|
|
|
Post by bicentennial on Mar 26, 2017 13:09:27 GMT -5
NCAA's Freedom of Movement rules were issued in May 2013. Added to in May 2015. Just looking at the win/loss records, it sure looks like this was at the root of the problem not coaches figuring out JTIII. Let me 1st say, I just want to know what you think. Below is information that formed my opinion that coaches figured out JTIII's coaching weaknesses over an extended time period The rule changes helped to exponentially speed up the deterioration of the basketball program, but there were are already chinks in the armor. Though the NCAA's Freedom of Movement rules would affect JTIII's ability to play defense, it should not affect the offense Offensive Efficiency Rankings 2013/14- 84 (NIT) 2014/15- 52 (NCAA) 2015/16- 133 (No Bid) 2016/17- 152 (No Bid) Sticking with prior to the rule changes do you have a theory for the NCCAT/NIT record from 2008-2013 of (2-5): 1. 2 wins (Maryland-Baltimore County and Belmont) 2. 3 double digit season ending losses in a 4 year period from 2010-2013 (#14 Ohio, #11 VCU, #15 FCGU) JTIII has failed to win consecutive games in the BET/NCAA/NIT in the years of 2011, 2012, 2013 (this streak is currently on going, post rule changes) Unfortunately the Offensive Efficiency Ratings you quote are not on a per possession basis. As we all know JTIII teams played a slow style of basketball so there were fewer possessions. If you look at the Per Possession Efficiency it appears somewhat different! Year - :OE - DE 2013-14:43 - 91 2014-15:29 - 34 2015-16:66 - 80 2016-17:102- 57 Before 2013 JTIII teams were usually top 40 in DE on a per possession basis. After the change in rules they became much worse in 2013-2014. The next year they adjusted by one hand checking and they did OK. After that they could not even one hand check and their defense became even worse. The 2016-17 team was much worse on offense than any other JTIII coached GU team and was one of his 5 worst on defense as well.
|
|
This Just In
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Bold Prediction: The Hoyas will win at least 1 BE game in 2023.
Posts: 10,592
|
Post by This Just In on Mar 26, 2017 18:33:15 GMT -5
Let me 1st say, I just want to know what you think. Below is information that formed my opinion that coaches figured out JTIII's coaching weaknesses over an extended time period The rule changes helped to exponentially speed up the deterioration of the basketball program, but there were are already chinks in the armor. Though the NCAA's Freedom of Movement rules would affect JTIII's ability to play defense, it should not affect the offense Offensive Efficiency Rankings 2013/14- 84 (NIT) 2014/15- 52 (NCAA) 2015/16- 133 (No Bid) 2016/17- 152 (No Bid) Sticking with prior to the rule changes do you have a theory for the NCCAT/NIT record from 2008-2013 of (2-5): 1. 2 wins (Maryland-Baltimore County and Belmont) 2. 3 double digit season ending losses in a 4 year period from 2010-2013 (#14 Ohio, #11 VCU, #15 FCGU) JTIII has failed to win consecutive games in the BET/NCAA/NIT in the years of 2011, 2012, 2013 (this streak is currently on going, post rule changes) The offense he ran was best and most effective against man to man defense. Think back to the most of the highest points. Duke. UNC. Nova in the blizzard. New rules made it pretty hard to play man to man. Or at least you couldn't do it for long without getting into serious foul trouble. Most teams switched to a zone or pack the line type system. If more teams are playing zone and pack the line defenses, the lane is clogged, more cutters are getting bumped and held. It severely limits the advantages that the offenses JT3 was running had. Moreover those defenses benefited teams with agile possession dominant guards who could find the seams. Something his teams lacked. As for tournament games, I'm not sure how that shows teams figured him out. Wouldn't BE record be the most persuasive? Those are the teams that saw it the most. Are you suggesting that only those tournament teams that had a week to prepare were able to figure out everything from tape study but teams who played a home and away for years couldn't? That makes no sense to me. My point isn't that the rule changes were the only factor. I just think it was critical. His failure to adjust was at the heart of everything. Couple that with a few seasons of whiffing on the recruiting front and he was doomed. His misses there were two fold. He failed to land the ball handler he needed to run his system AND to benefit from the rule changes. Plus the players that he did land in his last best class all failed to pan out. That sealed his fate. Let me 1st say, I just want to know what you think. Below is information that formed my opinion that coaches figured out JTIII's coaching weaknesses over an extended time period The rule changes helped to exponentially speed up the deterioration of the basketball program, but there were are already chinks in the armor. Though the NCAA's Freedom of Movement rules would affect JTIII's ability to play defense, it should not affect the offense Offensive Efficiency Rankings 2013/14- 84 (NIT) 2014/15- 52 (NCAA) 2015/16- 133 (No Bid) 2016/17- 152 (No Bid) Sticking with prior to the rule changes do you have a theory for the NCCAT/NIT record from 2008-2013 of (2-5): 1. 2 wins (Maryland-Baltimore County and Belmont) 2. 3 double digit season ending losses in a 4 year period from 2010-2013 (#14 Ohio, #11 VCU, #15 FCGU) JTIII has failed to win consecutive games in the BET/NCAA/NIT in the years of 2011, 2012, 2013 (this streak is currently on going, post rule changes) The offense he ran was best and most effective against man to man defense. Think back to the most of the highest points. Duke. UNC. Nova in the blizzard. New rules made it pretty hard to play man to man. Or at least you couldn't do it for long without getting into serious foul trouble. Most teams switched to a zone or pack the line type system. If more teams are playing zone and pack the line defenses, the lane is clogged, more cutters are getting bumped and held. It severely limits the advantages that the offenses JT3 was running had. Moreover those defenses benefited teams with agile possession dominant guards who could find the seams. Something his teams lacked. As for tournament games, I'm not sure how that shows teams figured him out. Wouldn't BE record be the most persuasive? Those are the teams that saw it the most. Are you suggesting that only those tournament teams that had a week to prepare were able to figure out everything from tape study but teams who played a home and away for years couldn't? That makes no sense to me.
My point isn't that the rule changes were the only factor. I just think it was critical. His failure to adjust was at the heart of everything. Couple that with a few seasons of whiffing on the recruiting front and he was doomed. His misses there were two fold. He failed to land the ball handler he needed to run his system AND to benefit from the rule changes. Plus the players that he did land in his last best class all failed to pan out. That sealed his fate. We have common agreement, I wanted to address the highlighted area There is a correlation in losses between the NCAAT/NIT & BET When you win, the opposition analyzes you and the NCAAT is about making people uncomfortable By taking away what they do best Prelude: Bill Self who people consider an elite coach, I think is over rated. Elite 8 Record: 3-8 Which includes a 2 day turn around between Sweet 16 and Elite 8 games Back to main topic: JTIII's most recent tournament highlights below Final Four 2007 BET Runner-Up 2010 Let me reiterate that in the post season coaches analyze what you do and dont do and on short turn around scouting/preparedness matters Below is a look at the 1st Rd match up records Since the Final Four JTIII is 4-8 in the NCAA/NIT (33%) winning percentage With a week to prepare 4-4 (50%) winning percentage in 1st Rd matchups, 4-8 overall In all of these cases JTIII was the higher seed, some may say that the losses are bad luck, a crap shoot But if you are the higher seeded team with more talent and a perceived better coach the 1st rd win % should not be a coin toss The BE teams figured out how to beat JTIII on short turn-around at bare minimum Since the 2010 BET, JTIII has not won consecutive games That is a 7 year time span and shows that there is a trend. Overall Record 4-7 BET 1st rd matchup record 4-3 (57%) winning percentage, 1 game over .500 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015 NCAAT years: 2011- BET & NCAAT- Loss 1st rd 2012- BET & NCAAT- Win 1st Rd 2013- BET win/NCAAT loss 2014- BET loss (only included as knocked off of the NCAAT bubble)2015- BET & NCAAT - Win 1st Rd 3-1 Record, 1st game of BET (75%) winning percentage in the NCAAT years Excellent and goes in line with the regular season where there are days between gms 0-4 Record, 2nd game of BET (0%) winning percentage in the NCAAT years, (this suggests that even with NCAAT talent, on short turnaround JTTIII gets out coached) Overall record in the 2nd game of the BET since 2010, 0-7 Overall record in the 2nd game of the NCAA/NIT since 2007, 0-8 Combined overall record in the 2nd game of the BET/NCAA/NIT 0-15 (0%) Winning Percentage JTIII has gone 0 for 15 and is currently on a streak of 15 straight losses in the 2nd game of 3 different tournaments spanning nearly a decade
|
|