|
Post by aleutianhoya on Sept 2, 2016 8:31:10 GMT -5
Then the season tickets holders can and should vote with their feet and not attend the games if they think watching the Hoyas take on teams that are somehow "below" their fandom. Relationships with coaches, relationships between schools, political reasons, guaranteed payments, and many other reasons influence game scheduling. It is not a simple process. As many other posters have pointed out, it is important to have games that the Hoyas can and will likely win, even if they have an off game. That also gives the coaches to allow different players to get major time, experiment with other lineups, etc. Those games are critical in many respects. The coaching staff can and should assume that FANS should want to come out to as many games as possible. As a kid, I loved going to all Hoya games- Syracuse or St. Leo's. The same is true today. I wish I could be there to see them take on Arkansas State, or anyone else on their schedule. I would have been proud and happy to support the Hoyas versus You Con or Dook in 2004. I have happily attended NIT games. If the Hoyas are playing, and I can make it and afford in financially and otherwise, I am happy to be there. I really do not have any patience for fans who feel put off by the the schedule. If you do not like it, do not buy the tickets. The program will move forward with or without you. That's great for you. And great for those who think similarly. But I don't think we're in a position to just say to people "if you don't like it, walk away." We're trying to build support, not laugh in its face. That said, the first consideration should always be: What is the best way to build a schedule to make this particular team as good as it can be. And the second consideration should always be: What is the best to build a schedule to make the program as good as it can be in the next few years. If there are ways to appeal to local fans within that context, then that's great. But if there aren't, then I have no problem with doing what needs to be done. The reality of our situation is that we need to schedule top-tier opponents in the OOC in order to build our strength of schedule and maximize our selection and seeding opportunity for the NCAAT. The easiest way to do that -- while gaining much-needed exposure on ESPN in order to sustain and build national interest in the program -- is in neutral site events. So...we have Maui and its ilk on a nearly annual basis. And we play a "decent" mid-major on a neutral court in another. That necessarily means that we aren't going to play too many strong teams at home, or else our schedule would be way too top heavy. Nonetheless, this year, we have two outstanding home games against top teams (Maryland and UConn). Tough to argue with those if you're a season ticket holder! This year's team, coming off of last year's debacle, needs a strong OOC performance and needs, above all else, to not lose games against perceived inferior foes. So, in that context, scheduling the rest of the games against marginally weaker opponents than we did last year strikes me as wholly appropriate. Those first two weak games (one just before Maryland, the other just after Maryland and just before Maui) make perfect sense (and one is scheduled for us anyway). Then, after Maui, you've got the two local cupcakes. Sure, they stink, but if you play really bad teams, at least they're local ones. So, no problem there for me either. Then you've got a decent mid-major at home as part of the BB&T. I know they're not sexy, just like Monmouth wasn't, but they shouldn't be terrible. Could we substitute ODU for Elon? Sure. But who cares? The last one is UNC-G. That's a game against a cupcake that we don't have to pay a guarantee for since it's a return game. I think that's probably a factor, too. In most years, I'd rather we upgrade one or two of those cupcakes a bit. But coming off of last year, I have no problem with it. And the schedule really isn't that bad for season ticket holders. The McD game probably isn't part of the package, so there's five crappy games OOC alongside two outstanding ones.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Aug 19, 2016 6:21:07 GMT -5
Obviously this is unfortunate; Paul had a solid freshman campaign and seemed multi-skilled.
But I never begrudge any kid transferring for what he reasonably believes will be better opportunities elsewhere. The unique injury situation here presents one rationale (although he presumably could have medically red shirted here this year if that were the entire concern).
From a programmatic perspective, you don't want kids that are going to get key minutes at any point in their career to leave. But it's not necessarily an unhealthy sign if good players decide that even though they are good, they won't get those key minutes here because of even better players on the roster or in the pipeline. It's great if kids decide they want to stay even in that situation. But it is a sign of good talent in depth if they don't.
We wont know until after the fact if that is the case. Obviously, even if it seems to be the case, it may turn out that Paul was wrong about the relative strength of other players compared to him. But if it is the case, then this is not a negative for anyone.
In any event, good luck to Paul!
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Aug 12, 2016 10:03:27 GMT -5
Congratulations to Emily Infeld (B'12), who ran 31:26 to finish eleventh in the women's 10K earlier this morning, shaving a significant 12 seconds off her personal best.
Nowhere near the winner (an incredible world record -- 29:17), but you can't ask for more than doing better than you've ever done before!
FWIW, unlike many of the other events, the field her was huge (35 finishers), so eleventh was well toward the front.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Aug 10, 2016 14:07:26 GMT -5
While I think the tone of your post is pessimistic (I wouldn't say we are in the 2002-2004 realm when it comes to where the program is at, but I'll leave that debate aside), it raises some good points. Here's the source of the three year average. Better athletes, better coaching, not so better results. 2002 through 2004, last 100 games of Craig Esherick's tenure: 2000-01 (NCAA/16) 5-3 2001-02 (Declined bid) 19-11 2002-03 (NIT) 19-15 2003-04 13-15 Total 56-44
2013 through 2016, most recent 100 games of John Thompson III's tenure: 2012-13 (NCAA/64) 0-1 2013-14 (NIT) 18-15 2014-15 (NCAA/32) 22-11 2015-16 15-18 Total 55-45
I'm not disputing those records, that they're very disappointing, or your math. But, the records themselves don't tell the full story, as anyone looking at who the wins and losses were against in those years, and by what scores, would have to conclude. In the three most recent III seasons, the Hoyas' Ken Pom average rating is 50. For the relevant CE years? 68. In terms of RPI, for III, the average is 67. For CE, the average is 90. In terms of wins against top 50 teams, III has gone 10-28. CE went 7-28 Again, III's record these past three years ain't good. But it's not nearly as bad as Craig's years.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Aug 8, 2016 8:56:37 GMT -5
It will be hard to make any predictions without knowing whether JTIII is, in fact, going to change the offensive playing style. If we do move to an up-tempo, guard-oriented, spread pick and roll, "space and pace" type offense - then we should be a top 25 team, with the potential to reach the second weekend if we don't play a lousy game in the tournament. But if we continue playing through the center handling the ball at the foul line much of the time - we'll be wasting a lot of our talent and would likely be a more borderline NCAA tournament team. All indicators are that we are changing the offensive scheme - but I don't think I'll actually believe it until I see it in a real game! This is common thinking but do you guys remember Josh touching the ball at the top of the key? According to my memory he touched it little to none in that area IMO The makeup of the team controls a lot of these decisions, don't think we had the personnel to play that way last year at all. You can run PNR with DSR all day it's not going to get you much since he doesn't have the speed to turn the corner gets flattened out and you spend time passing side to side rather than getting down hill. 2 years ago when Markel and Dsr were our only real offense after Josh's suspension, we ran pro sets like Horns and some others quite a bit towards the end of the year... Anyways I don't think 3 is going to handcuff his fastest team in years and from what I understand the major focus in the offseason has been to increase conditioning in order top play faster. The players he brought in also backup that thinking as they are athletic and aggressive types. I would simply add that that we are very likely to see our 5s handle the ball early in a set toward the high post. It allows us to subsequently PNR with our big (something I hope both of our 5s are working on) and sets up the PNR on the opposite side with two guards or a guard and a forward (or a straight dribble-drive) by bringing the defensive 5 out of the post. It's a staple of virtually every offense. Very, very few teams just leave their 5 down low for entire sets. So, don't confuse that with having our five with the ball making key decisions -- a Princeton staple. And, not for nothing, I think Jesse can be quite good at the high post, so I would be actually disappointed if we don't incorporate at least a bit of him with the ball there meaningfully.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jun 22, 2016 17:49:26 GMT -5
I appreciate SS's post on the subject. It is a valid point of view. I do not accept it, however. I do not have special expertise on the subject but, over the years, I believe I have developed a skill at getting to the heart of a matter (some may disagree with that) through whatever process I have been gifted with. I have been through World War II, participated in the Korean War, followed the Vietnam War, the Kuwait War, the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War. In none of those did we worry about offending through words those we fought. It is beyond unbelievable to me that calling our enemy Radical Islam is of any significant consideration when compared to the fact that we are targeting Radical Islam leaders and fighters with our bombs. We are not targeting Islam, nor are we condemning Islam with our words. We are targeting and identifying Radical Islam with our bombs and words of which the latter is minor when compared to the former. There, by and large, we were fighting against nation-states -- entities that were not relying on recruitment from abroad or co-opting from within in order to wage their war. The Nazis and Japanese were conscripting or not conscripting regardless of the language we used to describe them. It is beyond dispute that the present terrorist entities use the notion that the West is "waging war on Islam" as a tool to recruit people to their cause. Is that propaganda? Of course. Is it wrong? Obviously. But it is nonetheless a fact that they do it. Thus, from an operational perspective, it makes sense to do what we can to tamp down that propaganda's efficacy. Perhaps it is impossible to do so. But unless it is doing harm, then there is no reason not to try. And, thus, we choose our words carefully. I guess I'm not sure where the problem is with that.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jun 20, 2016 10:04:02 GMT -5
Since we're talking about 95-96, let's look at the numbers in that series. The Bulls won the Finals in six games (after being up 3-0). Jordan averaged a healthy 27 points, 4 assists and 5 boards. But in the last three games of the series (two losses and a game 6 win), Jordan averaged 23 points on an average of 7/20 from the field, including 11% from three. He put up pretty good (though not great) "counting" numbers, but on a percentage basis, he simply wasn't all that great. Curry was a very similar 6/19 from the field last night -- he didn't shoot as many FTs, so he had a handful fewer points -- but his game 7 performance "stinkeroo" wasn't that much different from what Jordan did in the final three games of the 95-96 series. And overall for the series? Curry averaged 23 points, 4 assists, and 5 boards. Four fewer points per game; same numbers otherwise. Jordan is the greatest player of all-time -- I'm not taking anything away from him -- but I don't think it's fair to Curry to overstate Jordan's level of performance relative to Curry's. Not for nothing, the greatness of LeBron is his ability to positively affect the game in so many different ways even when he isn't shooting well. The casual basketball fan doesn't always appreciate the "easy" assists and the rebounds, but they're obviously vital. And yet my eyes tell me that there is no way Jordan tosses in a stinker in Game 7 at home with the title on the line. How many awful turnovers including the behind the back pass to the fans? Other than one very long three to tie the game relatively late, Curry should have stayed home and tweeted with his obnoxious wife. And of course you may be right. We can't know because it didn't happen. But we do know that Curry had 4 TOs per game these last three games....Jordan averaged 4 TOs per game in those final three games. I have no recollection of how many were "awful" for Jordan. For that matter, I can't readily identify Curry's turnovers (aside from the behind the back pass and one other no-look pass into the middle of the court that got deflected). Curry didn't play well; no argument from me.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jun 20, 2016 9:18:14 GMT -5
I don't know who would win a series, but Jordan would never have floated that stinkeroo that Curry had in a Game 7. Since we're talking about 95-96, let's look at the numbers in that series. The Bulls won the Finals in six games (after being up 3-0). Jordan averaged a healthy 27 points, 4 assists and 5 boards. But in the last three games of the series (two losses and a game 6 win), Jordan averaged 23 points on an average of 7/20 from the field, including 11% from three. He put up pretty good (though not great) "counting" numbers, but on a percentage basis, he simply wasn't all that great. Curry was a very similar 6/19 from the field last night -- he didn't shoot as many FTs, so he had a handful fewer points -- but his game 7 performance "stinkeroo" wasn't that much different from what Jordan did in the final three games of the 95-96 series. And overall for the series? Curry averaged 23 points, 4 assists, and 5 boards. Four fewer points per game; same numbers otherwise. Jordan is the greatest player of all-time -- I'm not taking anything away from him -- but I don't think it's fair to Curry to overstate Jordan's level of performance relative to Curry's. Not for nothing, the greatness of LeBron is his ability to positively affect the game in so many different ways even when he isn't shooting well. The casual basketball fan doesn't always appreciate the "easy" assists and the rebounds, but they're obviously vital.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on May 9, 2016 8:36:43 GMT -5
except I don't think fan/base attendance is cured easily by a winning team. Even at our height our attendance was mediocre. In addition, it's very clear 1) the fans we have are very fickle good fan bases stick with their team through thick and thin. 2) No matter how decent our fan base becomes we will always be second fiddle to Maryland in the area and way down the pecking order behind the pro teams. As to academic standards how many of the schools listed in the article have them? Maybe Duke. We know the other schools don't. Would you call a school whose attendance ranked in the top 10 percent of Division I "mediocre"? In fact that was Georgetown from 2006-07 through 2012-13. The fan base issue is a direct result of a generation of alumni and local fans where Georgetown tacitly educated them that there is one (and only one) sport that matters and to ignore the rest. This leads to an "all or nothing" approach when it comes to support. You can't just turn on and off the interest like a spigot. When Georgetown continues to send the message to its fans and the local community that its products are either inferior (football), irrelevant (women's basketball) or not worth their time (lacrosse), then the fan base will rise and fall solely as a result of men's basketball and it will continue to suffer as a result. When GU athletics is only "relevant" four months during the year, you'll get a fan base worth four months a year. Creighton draws great for basketball, win or lose, but it's not unique to basketball. Being a Creighton fan is more than showing up to 15 home games in the winter. Saturday's baseball game with the Hoyas drew 8,258 despite it being broadcast statewide on over the air TV and well as the ESPN radio affiliate. By contrast, GU averages an announced crowd of 222 per baseball home game with zero media whatsoever. Are there more than 222 men, women or children in a metro area of 4.6 million who could support one of just two Division I baseball programs remaining in DC? Well, there ought to be. There is a small minority on this board who will suggest that any money spent on sports other than men's basketball is counterproductive and the more money basketball gets, the better. That's a very short-sighted approach. But you're comparing GU baseball to one of the great drawing baseball teams in America -- a team that plays in the city and stadium that are synonymous with college baseball. They don't outdraw the SEC/ACC/Pac-12 big boys, but they draw very well. That's not particularly fair. I don't think GU's average of 222 is actually much worse (or maybe not worse at all) than what, say, St. John's averages. They play in a far bigger metro area with limited schools playing competitive baseball -- just like Georgetown. And they have far, far, far, far more history of fielding good (sometimes very good) teams. 8 NCAA trips in the past 13 years. When you don't play on campus, you're simply not going to draw that well, particularly when your team isn't very good. We can talk about how small 222 is, but I don't think other similar schools are drawing any differently. Just to provide some context, when GU played a Sunday afternoon game at Butler, Butler drew 259. A Sunday game at St. John's? 236. It's not Georgetown. It's everywhere. People. Don't. Care. So, maybe "there ought to be" more than 222 people that want to support Georgetown baseball, but there aren't! And based on the experience of other schools, that's not really all that surprising. (And, not for nothing, you're sort of cherry-picking your stats when you talk about the DC metro area's population but then say Georgetown is just one of two baseball programs in DC proper. Obviously, Maryland and GMU also play.)
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on May 9, 2016 8:22:18 GMT -5
Hoyas win the third game against Creighton 3-2. 24-26 on the year, but their 7-8 mark in conference currently has them fourth and in a conference playoff position. Their remaining games are against cellar dweller Villanova. Win 2 of 3 and they are likely (though not surely) in the conference playoffs. Seton Hall is fifth and has two fewer wins, but the Hall still has 6 games remaining (to the Hoyas 3). So the Hall can catch Georgetown regardless of what the Hoyas do. (I believe GU has the tiebreaker since it won 2 of 3 against SH, but I don't know for sure that's how it works.)
Still going to be hard to finish above .500 (unless they win 2 of 3 and DON'T make the BET, which is possible). That's because the BET is double elimination, so they would have to win a couple games against better teams.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on May 3, 2016 7:24:59 GMT -5
Hi Quickplay I'm tired of hearing of the tired cliché about everything is the fault of the "military/intelligence/corporate industrial complex." You know, the military is a fraction of the size it once was. I look around, I look at poor neighborhoods and I see young kids with cell phones, cars, and none of them are starving. The point is that you can go into any fast food restaurant and you can get a job tomorrow. However, they can't get any applicants. 40-50 years ago, students would come home from schools and deliver papers, work in restaurants, etc., but you just don't see that today. This might surprise you, but the majority of those who work in the corporate world, are very hard working, honest Americans. And where does this extra money come from that you are talking about?? I know. Take it from the Gates' the Zuckerbergs' etc. These are geniuses who make this country run and help make it wealthy. If all of these fast food restaurants couldn't get any applicants for the jobs they have open, they would either close (for lack of employees) or be forced to bump up wages (to attract applicants). That's basic economic reality. And neither happens. These places are fully staffed. Sure, there's high turnover, so they might frequently be "hiring," but those jobs are quickly filled. And my goodness, do you really think "students" no longer have jobs after school? I go into my local supermarket, and that's largely who is running the register and bagging groceries. I go into my local restaurant and that's who is largely waiting on the tables. Students are doing what they always did. There are more "adults" doing those jobs now than there were in the past, however. Why? Because those are the only jobs many can get. There's no question the overall standard of living in the country has continually improved -- at all levels of society. That's your "everyone has a cell phone and car" point. But that doesn't mean that we should be satisfied as a country with where the bottom quarter or so of society lives. Even if the minimum wage were raised to $10 per hour, that only comes out to $20K per year (likely with limited or no benefits of any kind). Roughly 20% of American households have income at that level or lower. 20%!!!!! I'm sure most of those qualify for state and/or federal assistance of varying kinds (cash, food stamps, housing vouchers, Medicaid, etc.), and remember, many of these are people who have -- as you suggest -- walked into a fast food restaurant and gotten a job. Think about trying to support a family on $20K per year. Where does the money come from? Well, sure, you can take some from Mr. Gates -- he's apparently already agreed independently that he has too much money and society needs it more than he does since he's decided to give most of his fortune away. Just one unrelated point on Social Security. The entire system may well be flawed. But it's instructive to return to first principles and remember that the New Deal scheme was to provide "security" for segments of society that were unable to protect themselves -- minors, the disabled, and the elderly. Those are folks that were deemed unable to support themselves. Well, in 1940 only 54% of the population that made it to adulthood also made it to age 65. So, if you made it to be old enough to work, you only had about a 50/50 shot to ever collect social security. And on average, you lived another 14 years from that point. The age of retirement made some actuarial sense. Many people in thir sixties were unable to work (or, obviously, didn't even get to that point). Now? The number reaching 65 is over 70%, and if you get there, you're living another 20 years. So, one logical answer is to increase the age of retirement to fit the original goals and parameters of the program, since more and more people are able to work longer and, thus, don't need the benefit. Obviously, that has some negative economic effects in terms of expanding the work-force by disincenting people from retiring. But it's still the best first step. I find it incredibly disingenuous (or simply ignorant) when people argue that they "paid in" to the system and thus "deserve" a benefit with no reduction. The ENTIRE SYSTEM was built on the premise that basically half of the workforce would pay in and never collect more than a nominal benefit (if any)for the simple reason that they were dead. After all, it's not "Social Security." It's "Social Security Insurance." No insurance program works if EVERYONE who pays the premium gets back the entirety of it (or more).
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on May 2, 2016 13:24:45 GMT -5
Probably off topic, but why do we always hear about Social Security (the program where people expect a return from what was taken from their work earnings) going bankrupt, but never is there a fear that we will run out of welfare money? There is. And we have. When reform was enacted through the TANF program in the 1990s, the block TANF grant (pure welfare payments) given to the states was set at 16.5 billion annually. What is it today? 16.5 billion. So, there's been an incredible reduction in amounts available to poor families just based on inflation. In addition, the TANF program created a $2 billion federal contingency fund to be used by states when they hit certain recessionary benchmarks. Since 2010, however, that fund has run out of money early in each fiscal year. It's never been adjusted for inflation, and Congress has never acted to address the issue. So, (some) states have not gotten significant amounts. You might call that "running out of welfare money." Finally, the TANF program permitted Congress to annually appropriate money to allow states with high population growth (or special recessionary issues) to receive supplemental amounts. These appropriations were made until 2011, but in no year thereafter. Obviously, states spend a significant amount on TANF-related programs also. And this doesn't count medicaid, food stamps, and other programs one might well consider "welfare." But TANF is "welfare" at its purest. TANF is only .2% of the federal budget. All "welfare" (non-insurance) programs combined are about 10%. Social security? Almost one-quarter.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 27, 2016 7:09:41 GMT -5
TAS, one question and I have it for all fan bases. Are we over rating our own? I think Bradley is what he is but not special and Govan is the guy with upside which is why I think that will get confusing. Trey is not good. Isaac not so good. LJ is the real talent in the group and I think will step up without DSR. I think DSR there caused problems with the sophomores this past year progressing. I know we have brought in some nice talent on paper but have also seen this hype then when the season starts we ask where are these guys or we say WTF when they play? My question is how talented are we with a non Hoyatalk focus against the conference and the country and I ask because we were really bad this past season. That's always a risk. No question. Part of the challenge of analyzing college sports (unlike, in most instances, the pros), is that you're constantly trying to project improvement from your returning guys and initial impact from your new guys. That's really hard to do because there's so many unknowns. Last year, we were banking on our then-rising-sophomores to either improve or, at a minimum, be the same player. Well, one got hurt and gave us nothing, two were actually worse than their freshmen years, and LJ (as you note) was significantly improved. Had Tre and Ike simply performed at 14-15 levels, we almost surely make the NCAAs. What I think we have this year, eagle, is a lot of different ways we could be quite good. We have the potential talent and skill to be a very good team. Will LJ get even better? Was last year Brad's ceiling, or will he improve even more? What about our rising sophomores? Lots of talent and skill there, but both key guys need to improve more. Will Agau and Paul make an impact? Can Ike get at least back to where he was his freshman year? And, obviously, we're bringing in three new players, two of whom already have collegiate experience. Can they be at least positively impactful? We're going to have to see a few of those things happen. None alone is crazy. Hitting on all (or even most) seems unrealistic, but we don't have to. If none happens? Well, then we ain't gonna be very good!
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 25, 2016 7:08:07 GMT -5
Good analysis. The only scenario I see LJ playing less than 30 mpg is if he repeatedly gets into foul trouble again this year. He seemed to improve in that area the latter part of the season....I am hoping this doesn't become an issue. If I were to be picky, I think Ike gets far more than 18 minutes a game. Also, I see Pryor getting quite a bit of run at the 2 slot....probably more there than he gets at the 1. The reverse would hold true for Mullmore...he's get most of his minutes at the 1. I stand corrected. As you and others note, I switched up the positions of the new guards, but I think the minutes are still roughly the same, which I base simply on the fact that Mosely is going to be a freshman, that Mullmore is probably the most unknown based on competition level (arguably even more than Mosely) and Prior is likely to be guaranteed significant minutes or else he wouldn't have come). As for Ike? I'm just naturally skeptical based on last year. If he plays like he did last year, his minutes are going to go down significantly. Why? Because we (at least on paper) have so many more options. Two more (net) guards that project to play meaningfully, which ought to allow LJ to play the three. And a hopefully healthy Paul and Akoy. Had all of those options been there this past year, some combination of those guys would have taken a chunk of Ike's minutes. Unfortunately, we just didn't have a ton of options during some of the games he wasn't playing well. What seems reasonable to project is that he's consistently what he was when he was good as a freshman. That's certainly better than this past year. Based on that, and even given the increased competition for minutes, I think the roughly 20 MPG I had for him seems about right. If he takes a bigger step up? Like, say, what we thought he was likely to be this past year? Well, then obviously he gets more minutes. And, just as obviously, we're suddenly very much a top tier team. That would affect others' minutes, but that would be an OK problem to have! (And before others say "don't you think we're a top-tier team now?" I say in response: No. We have a lot of ways that we could become one (one or two of the new guards is VERY good; one of our fives takes a significant step up or the two combine to take a significant step; LJ becomes an all-american; and/or one of our options at the four slot is very good). We wouldn't need all of that to happen. But some of it would need to happen. It's not that much different than last year (except I think we have more routes this coming year to becoming very good). And, well, Edited happens. I think we're also all (not totally unreasonably) counting on LJ being at least as good as he was at the end of last year. Again, that's not unreasonable. But plenty of guys take somewhat of a step back when they're the unquestioned leader and the focus of opposing teams (the latter of which may nor may not happen depending on who else performs well on the court). Most important, things change if LJ's 3P% falls off -- that has happened to guys around the country ALL THE TIME. At the end of the day, we're still a team that didn't get an NCAA bid and which is losing its top scorer and assist man.)
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 25, 2016 5:03:31 GMT -5
For the entire season of 2015-2016 Mourning shot 52% from the field overall and almost 65% from 2-point range. In conference play those numbers respectively were 53% and 63%. He shot so well from the 2-point range not because of dunks, fastbreaks or backdoor layups. He shot that well from 2-point range because of arguably the most automatic midrange jumpshot on the team last season. He did this despite only averaging 6 minutes a game (in the game he actually got in that is) and thus never having the minutes to get more acclimated to the high level of play. The coaches have already been quoted claiming they think he has tremendous upside. So what is it exactly about him that makes the vast majority of you guys think he is or should be at the way end of the bench? Perception? Something he actually did wrong when playing compared to his other teammates? At least for me, MCI, it's on the other end of the ball (D without fouling and strength), combined with a huge log jam at the two slots he can most easily play. If he gets more than 5 or so MPG at the five, I think that means either Jesse (whom I view as better there overall than Trey) or Brad (who has to get significant minutes there (right?) or else he wouldn't have come back), isn't getting enough. And at the four, who does he take minutes from? You've got Marcus, Agau, and probably minutes at thst slot for Ike and Paul if we go small a lot as seems likely. And that doesn't even account for Reggie, who was ahead of Trey on the chart at that slot last year, though Trey may well have much more upside. With those numbers, a lot has to go right (Trey is really good!) or wrong (somethijg happens at the five slot; Agau and Paul arent all thst good or diminished by injury; we are forced to play two guard sets for some reason; Ike regresses further somehow or doesnt improve) for a lot of PT to be available. If Brad hadn't come back, I think it looks very different. But it just seems to me that it is going to be hard to break in. It's not a shot at him as much as it is a numbers game.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 24, 2016 6:58:48 GMT -5
I strongly believe the most minutes will go to guys that are at least passable defenders.
Obviously, this hasn't really changed the back court situation. I think it's incredibly unlikely LJ plays less than 30 MPG. After that, I think the minutes depend on who among the guards is really ready to contribute at a high level. We've got Mosely, Pryor, and Mullmore, and none of us really knows what any will bring. If they're all ready to contribute at a high level? Well, I think you'll see a lot of three-guard lineups so that two of them can be playing at nearly all times. If two are ready (as seems most likely)? You'll probably see a mix of two and three guard sets. And if just one is ready, you'll obviously see two guard sets. Either way, unless NONE is a key contributor, Tre's minutes necessarily go down a ton (unless he has improved a ton) and I think it's unlikely Kaleb gets significantly more minutes than he got last year.
The front court decisions depend, in part, on what happens in the back court, because it'll change depending on whether we need two bigs or three. I expect Brad and Jesse to essentially split time at the five, though I'd prefer Jesse get a bit more of it. And I expect Trey to be the third center. So, essentially the same as this year. That leaves Marcus, Ike, Paul, Agau, Reggie, and Trey (in roughly that order) to get minutes at one or two other slots.
My guess? I think we are most successful if the following becomes our core lineup:
5: Govan 20-25; Brad 15-20; Trey 2-5 4: Marcus 20; Agau 10; Ike 8; Reggie 2 3: Paul 15; LJ 15; Ike 10; 2: LJ 15; Mullmore 15; Mosely 8; Kaleb 2 1: Pryor 25; Campbell 10; Mullmore 3; Mosely 2
Something like that.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 21, 2016 10:30:53 GMT -5
It seems pretty clear to me that if Jesse makes even marginal improvement over last year, Jesse getting the majority of minutes at the five is the best option for this roster to be as successful as it can be. In the hypothetical "even slight improvement" world, he's playing 25-28 MPG, looking to take three-pointers, hitting a fair number of them, and he is consistently making fifteen footers. Thus, he is a direct scoring weapon in a pick and pop situation and when he simply handles the ball at the elbow at the top of the key. Just as importantly, he is an indirect weapon, because he has to be closely guarded in those circumstances, such that LJ (and the new guards on the roster) have driving opportunities without a shot-blocker in the way. That, to me, is the BEST chance we have to be very good next year. I'm not sure that's even debatable, given the skill-set of the rest of the roster. It's really not vital that he be better in the post than he was last year, because I don't think we're going to want him spending much time down there, unless he has a mismatch.
It's reasonable to think that if BJ came back, he'd have improved some more, based on the fact that he clearly improved during his time up to now. But it's not reasonable to think that he would be taking his defender out of the lane in ways that Jesse can. Thus, we might be able to more efficiently score with him in the game next year as compared to our scoring this year, but it's doubtful we would be as efficient as we would be if Jesse got most of the minutes and had improved a bit.
Obviously, the problem is that we don't know for sure if Jesse will improve a bit. If Jesse does, and if BJ comes back and plays 20-25 MPG, we've probably made our team worse than it could be. If Jesse does improve, and if BJ comes back and only plays 10 MPG, then why on earth did BJ come back here? If Jesse doesn't improve, and if BJ comes back, well that's as good as we could do under reduced circumstances. And if Jesse doesn't improve, and BJ doesn't come back (but could have), that's obviously the worst possible result.
It's a tough one. To me, probably the best possible selfish option would be to plan on Jesse getting a bit better but hedging a bit. Perhaps you achieve that if BJ knew coming in that he was going to play only 10-15 MPG, but would be featured exclusively in those 10-15 minutes, as a showcase to a future professional option. In the best case, Jesse plays as much as he would have anyway. And BJ obviously would play more than that if Jesse regresses, had foul issues, got hurt, or the matchup demanded it. But I can't imagine BJ would agree to that, and frankly he shouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 20, 2016 6:51:47 GMT -5
Very, very interesting. It confirms what our eyes told us: that DSR was quite slow both north/south and especially east/west. But it is pretty shocking how slow. If you sort by "sprint" times, he's 12th slowest out of about 60 and the slowest guard. And if you sort by agility, he's eighth slowest and the slowest of all guards (and only one other guard is close). Plenty of 3s and 4s were faster at one or both. Everyone on the list is a good player, so this isn't representative of our opponents. But this puts into numbers the biggest reason our defense struggled. The guy playing the most minutes couldn't possibly stay in front of anyone he had to guard. Again: that's not insight, since it was obvious to the eyes, too. But the numbers are shocking (at least to me). It's also pretty amazing that he was able to do what he did offensively given those measurables. It wasn't like he was just getting catch and shoot looks. He had to create for most of his shots (at least this year).
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 19, 2016 11:25:05 GMT -5
Here is the exact wording from the 2016 NCAA Manual. Since we're citing various web sites, it might help to go to the source. 12.8.4 Hardship Waiver. A student-athlete may be granted an additional year of competition by the conference or the Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement for reasons of “hardship.” Hardship is defined as an incapacity resulting from an injury or illness that has occurred under all of the following conditions: (Revised: 1/10/92 effective 8/1/92, 1/14/97 effective 8/1/97, 4/26/01 effective 8/1/01, 11/1/01, 4/3/02, 8/8/02, 3/10/04, 5/11/05, 8/4/05, 4/26/07, 9/18/07, 11/1/07 effective 8/1/08, 4/24/08, 7/31/14) (a) The incapacitating injury or illness occurs in one of the four seasons of intercollegiate competition at any twoyear or four-year collegiate institutions or occurs after the first day of classes in the student-athlete’s senior year in high school; (b) The injury or illness occurs prior to the first competition of the second half of the playing season that concludes with the NCAA championship in that sport (see Bylaw 12.8.4.3.4) and results in incapacity to compete for the remainder of that playing season; (c) In team sports, the injury or illness occurs when the student-athlete has not participated in more than three contests or dates of competition (whichever is applicable to that sport) or 30 percent (whichever number is greater) of the institution’s scheduled or completed contests or dates of competition in his or her sport. Only scheduled or completed competition against outside participants during the playing season that concludes with the NCAA championship, or, if so designated, during the official NCAA championship playing season in that sport (e.g., spring baseball, fall soccer), shall be countable under this limitation in calculating both the number of contests or dates of competition in which the student-athlete has participated and the number of scheduled or completed contests or dates of competition during that season in the sport. Dates of competition that are exempted (e.g., alumni contests, foreign team in the United States) from the maximum permissible number of contests or dates of competition shall count toward the number of contests or dates in which the student-athlete has participated and the number of scheduled or completed contests or dates of competition in the season, except for scrimmages and exhibition contests that are specifically identified as such in the sport’s Bylaw 17 playing and practice season regulations. Scrimmages and exhibition contests that are not exempted from the maximum permissible number of contests or dates of competition may be excluded from the calculation only if they are identified as such in the sport’s Bylaw 17 playing and practice season regulations; and (d) In individual sports, the injury or illness occurs when the student-athlete has not participated in more than three dates of competition or 30 percent (whichever number is greater) of the maximum permissible number of dates of competition as set forth in Bylaw 17 plus one date for a conference championship (e.g., gymnastics: 13+1=14, wrestling: 16+1=17), regardless of whether the team participates in the conference championship, provided the institution is a member of a conference and the conference holds a championship event in the applicable sport. Dates of competition that are exempted per Bylaw 17 (e.g., alumni contests, foreign team in the United States) from the maximum permissible number of dates of competition do not count toward the number of dates in which the student-athlete has participated. Where did this 20% number you found in your initial post come from? Are we in agreement that the number is 30% and that Hayes would fall within that requirement now? But you still don't get to either (a) or (b). That's the problem; you need both. Joshua Smith DID (contrary to popular belief) qualify. He only appeared in 6 games in the 2012-2013 season for UCLA (less than 30%). And all of those games were in November (so before the half-way mark). The trick with Smith wasn't that he didn't qualify based on those criteria but essentially that his transferring because the coach was a complete ass qualified as a medical hardship -- mental anguish or some such. That was the miraculous part of the NCAA's ruling for Joshua. The concern from other schools was that anyone might be able to argue something similar and get an extra year of eligibility, but the situation at UCLA was so well publicized that the NCAA probably thought they could handle it as a one-off situation. We might well be able to show that Brad had an injury his senior year of HS, but it didn't lead to him missing sufficient games his freshman year to meet the criteria. Doesn't matter if he was wearing a boot at times or not. Same with his father's passing (which you could see us arguing caused mental anguish akin to the Smith situation). The key is that unlike Joshua, Brad actually played after both of those injuries occurred. He played at least one game in every month we had a game his first year! Look, it's worth a shot, and stranger things have happened. But this seems very unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 19, 2016 8:42:34 GMT -5
I'd love to see a more consistent press, too. But I'm pessimistic we'll see it, if only because it simply hasn't been something III has used. I strongly suspect we'll see continued change offensively (the dribble drive being our chief mode of offense already last year). But defensively, I suspect III will try to begin the year playing solid half-court man or zone.
When we've seen a press, it's been the 1-2-2 "contain" press that serves to slow down the offense. I think we'll see that plenty. But I just don't see us using a forty minutes of hell style. Instead, it'll be used if the half-court D isn't working.
I'm a believer in a "use a press until the other team shows they can hurt it" defense because it's the easiest way to get easy points. So, I'd love to be wrong.
|
|