|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 3, 2023 9:57:50 GMT -5
I particularly liked that we tried the zone fairly early, it didn't work, and then he went back to it later. Right now, we simply can't defend one on one and keep people out of the lane. Every non-zone scheme in the world breaks down awfully quickly when that happens. You're going to give up some threes with the zone....most of them didn't go in....until a couple did! I'm sure we will get better at it as we work on it more.
Offensively, we struggle to initiate the offense too often when either Fielder or Cook are high and we use them as back to basket passers. That's a frequent tool to free up the lane for other players but it just doesn't work for us. We got bogged down too often trying to enter it to them at the elbow. Again, then, I like the adjustment of going more to ball screens early in the clock.
I absolutely love the screen the screener / flex action for Ish. Worked a ton. And you saw the guys really focus on getting him the ball once they saw he was hot.
Now with Ish, we are realistically still one player short of being consistently competitive.
Offensively, with him, we are more than competitive with this group. Our defense isn't going to be great regardless. Too many guys simply aren't good defenders. But I'm confident, based on what I have seen, that the staff will continually tweak and adjust the scheme to maximize success there. There just may not be a high ceiling. But we will be competitive often overall with this group. Injuries to any of the fours or fives would be a problem.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 2, 2023 21:15:32 GMT -5
After rewatching the last play it also appears the inbounder on TCU stepped over the line too. SMH. I agree with Coach Ed it’s not about the last play. It was other issues that lost us the game. Yeah, you can't be over the plane of the baseline before you release it.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 2, 2023 20:36:09 GMT -5
Have to miss that second free throw on purpose Couldn’t agree more. I said the same thing to my wife I'd be curious what the stats say there. I don't think it's obvious either way. (Cooley said at the opening of his presser that they thought about it, so not like they missed it.)
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Nov 5, 2023 13:50:05 GMT -5
A golazzo for the Hoyas to lead 1-0 early.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Oct 31, 2023 10:06:01 GMT -5
Let's get back to the subject at hand, i.e. student body interest in our program as evidenced by attendance at games (or scrimmages). Face it, a 6,000 student body will never fill up Cap One. In the glory days Cap One was filled because 1) we had a great (or very good) team; 2) we had some great (or at least very exciting players); 3) we had a very energized local alumni fan base; 4) we had some big rivalries with teams that had a large alumni fan base (Notre Dame, Louisville, Pitt, Uconn, etc) and 5) the quality of the team and it's performance brought local bball junkies not just alumni or students to Cap One. For the past 7 years we have had none of that. The time to evaluate the popularity and student support of the basketball program will be after we have returned to at least a semblance of those glory years. Won't be this year or next but may be by 2025-26. Hey, if we are playing Uconn or Nova or St. John's or Marquette for BE regular season title in February I guarantee we will have 15-18 thousand at Cap One. It's also important to put historical attendance in perspective. From 1984 until the last year we played at Cap Center/US Air (1997), we averaged over 15K fans for BE games only twice. For more than half of those years then average was in the 10 or 11K range. This in a 19K arena. Sure, we had huge crowds for some games and big ones for even more but as the averages show, it wasn't like the place was consistently filled. So...baby steps. Let's get the average up to 8 or 9 this year, which still is less than half full.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Aug 15, 2023 17:29:05 GMT -5
Meadows has filed to remove the RICO case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute. His attorney, George Terwilliger is not a "crackpot" lawyer. He was Deputy Attorney General at DOJ under Bush I before the Republican Party went nuts. Former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows is seeking to move his charges in the Georgia 2020 case to federal court, where he plans to ask a judge to dismiss the case. “Mr. Meadows is entitled to remove this action to federal court because the charges against him plausibly give rise to a federal defense based on his role at all relevant times as the White House Chief of Staff to the President of the United States,” attorneys for Meadows wrote in the Tuesday filing in the Northern District of Georgia. thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4154266-meadows-indictment-remove-georgia-charges-federal-court/28 USC Section 1442 (a) a prosecution that is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending: (1)The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue. www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1442I wonder if DOJ will seek to enter an appearance in Georgia state court under 28 USC Section 517 to argue against removal: The Solicitor General, or any officer of the Department of Justice, may be sent by the Attorney General to any State or district in the United States to attend to the interests of the United States in a suit pending in a court of the United States, or in a court of a State, or to attend to any other interest of the United States. www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/517I would be surprised if DoJ entered an appearance because of the, er, appearance it would create. Meadows (and Trump) have very little chance of successfully effecting removal. Neither was operating under color of their office but rather almost indisputably on behalf of the reelection campaign. There's a reason campaigns and the government are kept purposefully separate.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Aug 14, 2023 16:14:18 GMT -5
If I'm not mistaken, I think there's actually an NCAA rule that forbids that. Something along the lines of "you have to put all of your sports into one conference, but if you have a sport that your league doesn't sponsor, then you can put that one sport elsewhere." I would imagine without such a rule, universities would jump at the opportunity to decouple football conference affiliations from all-sports affiliations. You may be thinking of the Divisional rule. If you are D2 or D3 you can have one sport but only one sport be D1. The Johns Hopkins lacrosse rule. I think it has gotten more permissive over time but I have always thought that is pretty stupid too. Why not allow a school (particularly a small one like Wake or even us) to be in different divisions for different sports. Who cares?
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Aug 14, 2023 16:10:04 GMT -5
If I'm not mistaken, I think there's actually an NCAA rule that forbids that. Something along the lines of "you have to put all of your sports into one conference, but if you have a sport that your league doesn't sponsor, then you can put that one sport elsewhere." I would imagine without such a rule, universities would jump at the opportunity to decouple football conference affiliations from all-sports affiliations. It's not an NCAA rule but conferences generally require a member school to compete in tthe sports the conference does. Before the Patriot League added track, for example, Army and Navy competed with the Ivy schools in what were known as the Heptagonal Championships. Some conferences require a school to play specific sports to be admitted; football, for example, is required to join the ACC. But it's up to the conference: Miami joined the Big East in 1991 but never played Big East baseball. And I get that all things being equal it would be better to be somewhere for all sports. Continuity and rivalries are good. I also get that a specific sport (even non revenue) may feel that attachment to a big name conference helps in recruitment even if the conference isn't "big" in their sport. But it's short sighted. Having our softball and women's volleyball teams travel to DePaul and Creighton and vice versa doesn't seem sensical when they could be in conferences with local teams of similar competitive level. It's never going to be perfect. It could easily be a lot better.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Aug 14, 2023 12:09:35 GMT -5
The ACC will unravel like the PAC-12. If not now, in the next few years. I hope the Big East can take advantage. The Big East Tournament would absolutely rock with Syracuse, Duke and BC. 🔥 You had me until BC. F those guys. There's probably too many cooks in the kitchen for it to happen, but I wish that everyone would have the good sense to just form separate conferences for football (and maybe men's basketball) from those for other sports. The television revenue from rights fees are going almost exclusively for football (some for basketball). I know carriage fees are significant too, but those are becoming less so and in any event are based in large measure on the revenue sports. So have these behemoths for football (maybe men's bball too), and fully regionalize everything else. I would think that would make sense and be preferable to the vast majority of coaches, players, alumni, parents, etc in those sports. And the admins surely would appreciate the lower costs and academics the lessened travel.
|
|
|
Pete Wilk
Jul 7, 2023 22:13:11 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by aleutianhoya on Jul 7, 2023 22:13:11 GMT -5
Thanks for sharing that, Dan. I hope some Hoyas can step up and help Wilkie. A really good guy.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on May 20, 2023 14:57:43 GMT -5
And a double play to end it. With the win and UConns defeat of Creighton, the Hoyas qualify as the fourth and final seed for the BE Tournament!
Second straight year they qualify. I don't know if they ever have qualified two years in a row....but at minimum it's been a long time.
EDIT: DFW beat me to it...
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 23, 2023 20:42:25 GMT -5
This type of arrogance will allow others to pass us by. It similar to the basketball program. Life has a way of humbling those that are too comfortable. Maybe. But I view the risk of diluting what makes the school distinctive by chasing prestige whoring to be the greater risk. They're not fully mutually exclusive. You can make some targeted decisions that help with the rankings in ways that dont really dilute the student population.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 17, 2023 15:59:41 GMT -5
Huh? Universities (and most non-profits) have tons of employees. Paying an employee has nothing to do with whether you're a non-profit. If we were to pay athletes as employees, it would be no different than paying whatever the going rate is for a professor, or an administrator or a student performing some other job on campus. It's just that these particular students have a market wage that is way higher. But if it is Unrelated Business Taxable Income . . . [C]ollege sports cannot be classified as a tax-exempt endeavor, since their profits are not being invested in educational pursuits. Instead, universities are investing their sports profits into paying for lucrative coaching contracts, upgrading sports facilities, and accruing further sponsorships. The IRS has recognized this issue and, on May 2, 2013, the agency’s Exempt Organizations division released the Colleges and Universities Compliance Project final report, in which the division audited 34 organizations, revealing several areas of noncompliance related to the underreporting of Unrelated Business Taxable Income (UBTI). [6] The most underreported taxable income was related to the following athletic-dominated areas: fitness, recreation centers and sports camps, advertising, facility rentals, arenas, and golf. The report also found that the compensation of head coaches and investment managers often greatly exceeded salaries of the president of the college/university and other key school officials. At the end of the report, the IRS issued written advisories to twenty-four institutions on a number of activities that could result in tax liability in the future, which failed to adequately punish the colleges. [7] This report highlights both that colleges are using their 501(c)3 status to shield otherwise taxable revenue from the IRS and that they are disproportionately funding their athletics compared to their academics. In turn, this directly violates colleges’ 501(c)3 status, as the IRS has admitted that universities are pursuing non-educational endeavors that would disqualify their non-profit, tax-exempt status. www.culawreview.org/journal/the-college-tax-scam-addressing-university-exploitation-of-the-501c3-tax-statusThat's all well and good but it has nothing at all to do with whether athletes are considered employees. If the athletics portion of the university should be considered for-profit, arguably paying students directly would lessen the taxes owed. In any event, no one ever has acted on this.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 17, 2023 14:07:43 GMT -5
In other words, it's pay for play. AKA professional. We might as well just drop the whole going to class thing too. But then the universities lose their tax exemption. That’s likely why they don’t directly want to pay the student athletes Huh? Universities (and most non-profits) have tons of employees. Paying an employee has nothing to do with whether you're a non-profit. If we were to pay athletes as employees, it would be no different than paying whatever the going rate is for a professor, or an administrator or a student performing some other job on campus. It's just that these particular students have a market wage that is way higher.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 28, 2023 10:31:51 GMT -5
Why would’nt they. They are leaving because of coaching change. I understand they can use the reasoning but does it have merit in your opinion? If so is it enough that they should be allowed to play immediately? I suffered significant mental anguish and all I was doing was watching on TV. Surely if you played in the games.... Seriously, though, if they went out of their way to get rid of the "if your coach leaves you can transfer freely" exception, it seems unlikely they would allow players to just shoehorn their way into this one without anything else happening. Why get rid of the exception otherwise? To be clear I think if a coach leaves any player should absolutely be free to leave. Honestly, to me, that should be almost most obvious of any exception.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 27, 2023 21:33:08 GMT -5
Is there any chance Georgetown acts on this and buys the spot, potentially for an arena? Not in Georgetown so avoids the neighbors and parking dilemma but close enough for students to walk across the bridge. Feels like the perfect opportunity to me. Chance? Sure, but it would involve a significant pivot from the Capitol Campus, and this assumes there is liquidity available to make a successful bid in short order before it ends up in a bankruptcy court. Over and above an arena, the details of which would likely go through both Arlington County and Monumental Sports, GU would be acquiring a whopping 900 beds and significant kitchen and convention spaces, all of which are in some need of renovation; yet, it is younger than New South. But as we collectively learned with Mount Vernon College, these opportunities don't come around very often. I'm sure there's plenty of issues but it's a very attractive parcel. Could be used for any number of purposes. It would be planning malpractice to not at least perform diligence.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 22, 2023 11:30:20 GMT -5
It's basically a perfect performance. You have to walk the walk, of course. But talking the talk isn't just talk. It's a hell of a lot easier to walk the walk after saying it out loud.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 18, 2023 7:03:47 GMT -5
I get the dissatisfaction of the following things if they turn out to be true: 1.) We never held a real search 2.) We are overpaying for a coach with good but not great results 3.) There’s a fear this is not a clean break from the Thompson tree But if it’s in fact Cooley, knowing the ineptitude of our leadership who has led us to this place, Cooley is still a better coach than I thought we’d get a few months ago. It would have been nice to see what other guys we could have gotten their attention, but this is not a an Amaker, Brey, etc type of hire that may not have moved the needle at all for us. If nothing else I feel pretty confident that Cooley can replicate his PC record and we’ll be in the tournament 75% of the time and in the top 4-5 of the BE consistently. Coming from where we’ve been, I’ll gladly sign up for that with mild optimism the ceiling could be higher if the NIL money is there. It's virtually impossible for any rational observer to disagree with any of that.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 16, 2023 10:30:23 GMT -5
That’s what I thought regarding the full court press. Is the full court press obsolete now in college basketball? Is the skill level with the guards and forwards too high now like in the NBA where the full court press doesn’t work? For years on here people said all we have to do is full court press on defense. This year we tried it early but gave up after it didn’t work. If Shaka abandoned the full court press it leads me to believe that it no longer works in college basketball as a primary defensive scheme. Yea I think generally teams are just better prepared for it and you dont really see it all game. Someone like St John's was probably the closest to what you'll see as someone who actively presses, and you also saw how it generally worked out for them For the record i've never advocated for a press, but yes have seen others suggest it. Even when we sometimes would get a steal, its what you give up immediately on the other end and we generally would get destroyed. Teams are also much more willing to shoot an open 3 after they break the press today. All a very interesting question. I think the biggest issue is that fours and fives now are able to handle the ball competently with much more consistently. So, in the past, maybe you got the ball out of a ballhandler's grip and that led to a turnover, whereas now it just leads to an odd-numbered break. And you're absolutely right that breaking the pressure leads to a disorganized defense (or someone protecting the hoop from a layup) and too often to a wide-open three (whereas previously if there wasn't a layup opportunity, the offense regrouped, and that was a win for the defense). For sure, it can still be used to great effect as a way to speed-up a slow-playing team. (Think Syracuse vs. Virginia in the NCAAT a few years ago.) Where I think it absolutely can still be a weapon is if used unpredictably -- or if different types of pressure are used. I've long been a proponent of having a passive/containment 1-2-2 press as a primary tool in the shot-clock era so you can defend in the half-court for a shorter period of time. And then if every so often you aggressively trap out of the 1-2-2 (or deny the inbound and then trap), that can be a weapon.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 14, 2023 7:44:12 GMT -5
I heard Fanta interviewed again this morning, and when the radio host asked him to predict who will be the next Georgetown coach he laughed and said “I can’t, because I already know.” Given his history with the conference, I think the only person he could be talking about with such certainty is Cooley. He could be completely wrong, of course, and things could change, but at this point I’m going to be shocked if our next coach is anyone other than Ed Cooley. The good news is his other comments made me think, if his sources are solid, that Ronny and company will be gone as well. If that’s the case, I’m good with Cooley. This would be the second media source in 24 hours hinting that the deal may have moved from offer and consideration to agreed in principle. If that's the case I think the administration did what we asked them to: move decisively and quickly to get a coach that can start to turn the program around. That's IF this turns out to be the case. On a slightly separate topic, there seems to be signs for a while now we have a strong NIL war chest. Ewing was able to garner highly sought after transfers, Cooley might leave Providence in part to access better NIL funding, and that seems to be something Pitino hinted at for why he might prefer us to St. John. Another hypothetical, but something the admin should get credit for if true. The other possibility in all this is that the PC admin is actually in on the story. That is, we told them, negotiated a deal with Cooley, and then everyone agrees to stay quiet until PCs year is over. That could be viewed as respectfully giving PC a chance and time to share up its own plans behind the scenes (Pitino?) and respecting their current season, it could explain the high confidence levels in various leaks, and could explain the tepid "coach for the foreseeable future" statement from the PC AD (although other parts of their statement would flatly be untrue). Just spit-balling.
|
|