|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 18, 2016 10:30:08 GMT -5
Both Ben Standig (http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/ncaa/hoyas-land-key-graduate-transfer-2016-17-season) and Casual (http://www.casualhoya.com/2016/4/18/11450158/georgetown-hoyas-basketball-preview-rodney-pryor-jonathan-mulmore#370402159) reporting that we've applied for a redshirt waiver petition for Hayes, asking that his freshman year not be counted toward his eligibility. That would really mix this conversation up. Hmm, wouldn't that be one over the limit? I don't think it would be granted anyway, but, certainly something seems to be going on there... Interesting. I don't see how it gets granted either. I know the young man's father died during that first year, but it was early in the year -- he played after that. The NCAA rules could easily say "you can redshirt if you play less than one minute per game" or something like that. But, well, they don't! All that said, we've had very good luck overall with requests of this kind. I'm not sure how the scholarship issue plays out either, if he does get the waiver. This may have been a hedge if we didn't get one or both of the transfers we were seeking (even though they're different positions). That's my best guess.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 18, 2016 9:06:51 GMT -5
Good analysis, although I hope that Reggie shoots well enough to get more than spot minutes, and that both Tre and Trey step up and play more of a role than contemplated above. I really think we will need Trey when (not if) Jessie gets in foul trouble. Trey may need to be the backup 5 -- we just don't know what we have in Agau, and we don't know if Marcus can really play there. So he may get more minutes. But if he does, that necessarily means Agau and Marcus (or Jesse) play less. I don't see how Reggie gets much more than I gave him. He really can only play the four, right? So, he's in the same position in terms of competitors at that spot as he was last year, except we also add Paul and Agau to the mix (and Marcus is a year older). Same with Tre. I hope you're right -- and he's improved a ton and is ready to contribute. But just looking at the numbers at the guard position, unless we play meaningful minutes with four guards, there's just not a lot of time for him.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 18, 2016 8:32:25 GMT -5
Funny...we are 10 deep and yet no one has mentioned Johnson and Mosely. I am going with: Mulmore Pryor Peak Copeland Govan Derrickson White Cameron johnson Agau Mourning Campbell Mosely That's 12! Obviously, we aren't going to play 13 or 12 (or 11) anything approaching big minutes consistently. But I certainly agree that all 13 of those guys are candidates to play. So, just like last year, we need someone to step up their game (and/or one of the newcomers to be as good as we think they could be). Didn't really happen -- at least enough -- last year. I think without knowing whether III intends to go reasonably small (which I would define as Peak and two other guards) or not, it's hard to really determine a rotation. With the size of our guards, it'd be possible to even play four of them at a time, alongside Jesse. But that would create an enormous logjam with our bigs. My guess? He plans to play two guards with LJ at a third guard slot most of the time. Regardless, my early money is on Reggie and Tre being odd men out. It's just hard to see how they crack a rotation. So, rather than give you a starting five and subs, here's my depth chart: Peak: 30 Copeland: 25 Govan: 25 White: 20 Pryor: 20 Mulmore: 20 Derrickson: 18 Mosley: 15 Johnson: 10 Akoy: 10 Campbell: 5 Mourning: 2 Cameron: Spot I'm sort of assuming that when Jesse isn't in the game we mix and match at the five, but it's possible that we don't. I also think it's quite possible LJ and Ike play more than I've listed at someone's expense.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 15, 2016 13:51:44 GMT -5
Here's a possible non-player & facility improvement that can be made: fund the Academic Resource Center that supports our student-athletes to the level of our peers. “We have [teams] that compete and we resource to compete on a national level … and we have some that are more participation sports,” Reed said.I would love to see what's obscured by those ellipses. Also amusing: the academic coordinator's suggestion (accidental or otherwise) that they've been actively working for two or three years to eliminate sports at Georgetown: I wonder who's at the bottom of the totem poll these days. The homeless tennis teams? The homeless field hockey team? Wilk's Work-Study Warriors?[/quote] We've talked about this before, Russky. I think the model from the 80s, 90s, and early 00s still essentially holds: we have national sports (goal to win a national championship; funded accordingly); regional sports (goal to win a conference championship; funded accordingly); and local sports (goal to have a team; funded accordingly). Teams have certainly moved between those levels over the years, but I think the national sports presently are the basketballs, the soccers, the lacrosses, and the (middle?) distance-running portion of track/cross country. I think the local sports are certainly tennis and field hockey. I'd add swimming to that. I think baseball is somewhere between local and regional. They are now funded much better than they were 10-15 years ago, though still not at a level where they can really compete for a conference championship (let alone nationally) on a consistent basis. They now have some scholarships and they travel much more.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 15, 2016 13:30:21 GMT -5
Nate was a great finisher around the basket? I missed those years. Uhhh, then you missed the entirety of the 2011-2014 seasons. He was a career 59% shooter from two point land. That's exceedingly high. (Let's not discuss his three-point shooting or free throw shooting, which were both awful, but that's not the question.) It's not like those numbers got worse as he went: He was 61% and 58% in his last two years, and each year he attempted double the shots he attempted in his sophomore or freshman year. Those numbers were mainly so high because he extremely rarely took any shot out of his comfort zone. As noted, he took far more shots his last two years, but most of those were layups, putbacks, or his version of the sky-hook. Maybe he didn't have the overall athleticism that people thought he might have had or developed, but when he got the ball in close, he made it as a very high percentage. The problem with having him on the floor was that he couldn't shoot from outside of three feet at all. And he rarely attacked the basket when he got the ball from, say, eight to fifteen feet away, when he certainly seemed to have the skill set to do that and players always backed away from him. People (myself included) always undervalue a skill that should be easy (like consistently making three footers). The one thing he was good at was one of those things that we, as fans, simply take for granted as something everyone should be good at it, and so he didn't get credit for being well above average at it.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 14, 2016 10:23:47 GMT -5
There will be plenty of minutes for Tre if he plays competently. That's a big "if"!!! He got 20 MPG last year -- a significant number of minutes for a sophomore. We are replacing 35 MPG at the guard position. Even if Mulmore and Mosely come in and are competent players, they could easily simply take those 35 MPG from DSR and Tre plays no less (or not much less). Sure, if we also got another guard to come in, or if Mulmore or Mosely are excellent players right away, Trey would see a significant dip. But I think it's far from a given. In general, I'm with PR, in that transfers aren't necessarily a bad thing if they mean that you've simply upgraded talent. It's why I've always argued that losing Jerelle and Vee weren't terrible developments -- that's just what inevitably happens if you have a player on the roster who is blocked and believes they can do better elsewhere. So, were Tre (or anyone else) to see incoming talent and believe that they aren't able to compete against that talent, you understand if they go elsewhere. Sure, you want quality depth, but it's understandable. So whose option is it regarding Tre. Is it really his or is it IIIs. a unique distinction. If a transfer decision is based on the fact that superior talent has been brought in, then it's always in some respects a "mutual decision." III makes the call that superior talent is needed (or advisable) and the transferring player would decide they aren't able to compete with that talent and aren't willing to take a reduced role. Both have to happen (unless a scholarship is pulled). Obviously, that's not the only context in which someone would transfer. You might come in thinking you're going to be the "younger superior talent" to a guy that's a year older than you. Then, for one reason or another, it turns out you're not. And you're not willing to wait until your senior year to get big minutes. In that situation, III wouldn't have recruited you thinking you weren't going to play; you would make the choice to leave. Finally, it's possible that a guy is brought in that's younger than you and that is not expected to be a superior talent, but he develops far greater than expected. We could dream that this is what happens with, say, Kaleb. Again, III wouldn't have purposefully been looking to necessarily upgrade.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 14, 2016 8:36:59 GMT -5
IMO, I don't see how it is a great achievement by JT3 and staff. If anything, due to losing recruitment battles for studs and lack of dominant 35 mpg players, the team finds itself with plenty of playing time available to be won and no rising sophomore or junior feeling the heat from an incoming freshman. Who is responsible for recruiting and player development? The coaching staff. Who would be a transfer candidate? Usually the GU transfer profile is a rising junior who sees his playing time dropping instead of increasing next season (a la Vee, Rivers and Benimon) or a player who clearly hasn't improved after two/three seasons and should take a transfer year to improve (Nikita, Domingo and Bolden) or a freshman who did not see the light of day from the end of the bench and didn't like it (Giubunda). Which current player(s) fit(s) those profiles? With only the JM bros coming in at guard (so far), the available DSR minutes, the lack of a consistent performance by all of the returning players (with maybe February LJ as the exception), our recent fouling history and defensive issues, and JT3 increasing the rotation, playing time is up for grabs big time. Why transfer? Work your butt off and maybe you can play 20 minutes plus. It's available. Maybe it's a coincidence but most of the transfers under JT3 happened when studs (Monroe and Porter; Smith to a degree) came in or there was a glut of great guards (why Sanford & Rivers left) who took the bulk of the playing time. It's a great problem for the staff to have that they will not have next year. The great achievement will be when they get the studs, yet keep everyone else. That is how you win championships. Wouldn't Trey Campbell fit the profile? To be clear Mods im not starting a rumor by any means or calling for a transfer. However if you want to use that as the supposed profile of a possible transfer Trey fits a lot of those traits. Junior that has shown little improvement and minutes will probably be limited instead of expanding. We bring in Mulmore and Mosely so there goes minutes right there and if we somehow pull off Pryor you have to wonder who Trey will deserve more minutes then. I personally think Mosely will be ready to play from day 1 and Mulmore wasn't brought here to play 10 minutes a game. There will be plenty of minutes for Tre if he plays competently. That's a big "if"!!! He got 20 MPG last year -- a significant number of minutes for a sophomore. We are replacing 35 MPG at the guard position. Even if Mulmore and Mosely come in and are competent players, they could easily simply take those 35 MPG from DSR and Tre plays no less (or not much less). Sure, if we also got another guard to come in, or if Mulmore or Mosely are excellent players right away, Trey would see a significant dip. But I think it's far from a given. In general, I'm with PR, in that transfers aren't necessarily a bad thing if they mean that you've simply upgraded talent. It's why I've always argued that losing Jerelle and Vee weren't terrible developments -- that's just what inevitably happens if you have a player on the roster who is blocked and believes they can do better elsewhere. So, were Tre (or anyone else) to see incoming talent and believe that they aren't able to compete against that talent, you understand if they go elsewhere. Sure, you want quality depth, but it's understandable.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 12, 2016 16:05:19 GMT -5
For all the talk of endorsements, and deals, I think it is important to note that even in a world where endorsements and deals were permitted, 99% of players' real "value" in dollars would be virtually zero. Keep in mind there are 351 Division I basketball teams and many of them are bad teams who are rarely even on TV (and the snarky comments about Georgetown being "bad" aren't necessary; as bad as we were, we were still in the top 60-70 this past season, which means there were about 280 worse teams). Even many of the "Power 5" and Big East schools have teams and players who would not command much in the way of endorsements or other similar deals. Importantly, I do think it is important to note that much of the "value" in college basketball is based on the teams and universities that the guys are affiliated with. After all, fans are generally drawn to teams and not specific players (unlike the NBA where specific players like Lebron James, James Harden, Stephen Curry, etc. draw a lot of attention and a following). Sure, you might have some college stars who would command shoe deals, endorsements (I bet Kris Jenkins wishes he could do that now!), etc., but that's the exception. Moreover, colleges spend time and money cultivating players and developing them, while providing them with a free education. For most players, I think the value of a college degree (given 2016 tuition) far exceeds the individual value most individuals bring monetarily to their university. All that being said, I do recognize that players bring some value to their university. It's a big money sport and universities benefit from it. I have no problem with players getting stipends (even though they were struck down by the appellate court, so it may be impossible anyway) or some extra money if done fairly, but I think anything beyond that is not necessarily productive. Again, I think part of this problem is taken care of if you allow high school players to go straight into the NBA. In that scenario, players can choose to be professionals immediately (or play in Europe) or they can choose to go the college route. Their choice. In a total free market system, you'd basically have a situation where the top blue bloods and 5 star recruits would get all the money and everybody else would get very little. To me, that's basically a professional league. Incidentally, I think the same principle is even more true in football; it would profit the big time football schools like Texas, LSU, etc. to the detriment of everybody else. And again, there would be a huge disparity between the money value that could be ascribed to somebody like Manziel, Tebow, etc., and the "value" of a punter or kicker, or the lesser celebrated positions. The fact that the players are in some sense fungible in terms of fan interest is really irrelevant to the analysis of the situation. That's true in "professional" sports too, but the "owners" there (unlike the universities here) have been forced through player strikes to share significant portions of revenue with their employees. You're right that the value of most players is extremely limited in terms of endorsements. But we're potentially not just talking about endorsements in the traditional sense, we're talking also (and more significantly) to the use of player likenesses on television broadcasts and in videogames. There won't ever be a true free market system -- doing that would destroy any sense of competitive balance -- so you'll find some level of court-supervised limits to what the players are permitted to earn. If the only way to have a product (collegiate sports) is through some level of monopolistic controls, then those controls are perfectly permissible. That is, better to have a flawed product than none. I think the monopolistic nature of the two major sports wasn't troubling to people when the schools could plausibly claim they weren't making massive amounts of money through the endeavor (and I mean revenue, not necessarily profit). But that's simply not so now. As for the value of the scholarship or the education itself? Well, the argument doesn't really hold water. What if you were given a full academic scholarship, became an English major and through the wonderful English instruction at Georgetown, you wrote a massively successful novel while enrolled. Implausible, for many reasons, I know. But if you did, it would be laughable for there to be a rule that said "he's a college student, he is getting his education and that should be enough. If he can use his talents to make money, it should belong to us, not him. Once he's done with school, he can use his talents to make money." Sure, the scholarship has value -- great value. But don't you think the market for top, top tier Division I men's basketball players would be more than the value of that scholarship? The blue bloods are getting the top players NOW, just as they always have, and they would continue to do so if they could pay a bit more than everyone else. Same is true with Georgetown versus Howard. EDIT: We're all kidding ourselves if we don't fully appreciate that this is a professional endeavor now. How many kids that enroll at Georgetown come into school thinking they're "going pro in something other than sports" (to steal a line)? Some, admittedly, but few. The degree is a backup plan -- a nice one to be sure but a backup plan nevertheless. The fact that Duke alumni -- probably reasonably intelligent people -- continue to cheer hard for a program where the very best players enter with no intention of getting a Duke education -- shows the delusion that the entire modern system is built upon.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 12, 2016 14:04:48 GMT -5
I may be mistaken, but I believe the Commissioner is referencing the recent decision in the O'Bannon antitrust case, in which a class of plaintiffs alleged that the NCAA violated antitrust law by using their names and likenesses without compensating them. The district court held that this was a violation but the remedy was forcing the NCAA to pay student-athletes up to the true cost of attendance (rather than the scholarship limitation previously place) plus a relatively small annual stipend. (The appellate court subsequently overturned the stipend part, and the matter is now awaiting potential US Supreme Court review.)
What all that legal mumbo-jumbo means is that you might be able to get whatever endorsement deal you want, but the NCAA at present is still free to restrict any earnings you get to the total cost of attendance at the school. There are other cases out there that may blow up the whole system, but I'm guessing she was referring to this case and the possible conference/NCAA reaction to it.
As I've said numerous other times, I think the whole system will blow up in the mid-term. The television deals (and, just as important, the carriage rights available to conferences with their own networks) will be worth far less than they are now, which will create large financial issues for the bigger institutions. And somewhat contemporaneously, courts aren't going to permit Universities to continue to treat athletics as a business without some sense of free market principles. It doesn't need to be a truly unfettered market to pass legal muster, but I think the NCAA and its members have done itself no favors by chasing every last dollar and passing none of that money to the students.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 8, 2016 8:28:02 GMT -5
Who said JT3 couldn't get a job somewhere else? The fired coach was making $1.3M/yr. vs JT3's $3M/yr. The question is would he be paid $3M somewhere else. What's interesting is that another major basketball school is paying $1.3M, while we're paying $3M. Lots of people have made that argument, PR (though I'm not saying you were one of them). People say that no major college team would hire him. As to your salary point, another "major basketball school" is paying a coach without a track record of any kind at that school $1.3 million, and you can be sure that if Brian Gregory had gotten to the Final Four (or if Josh Pastner does within the years of his contract if he is hired) that his salary would have (or will) rise similarly. So, I don't think that's really interesting or surprising. It's simply what happens at the major college basketball level.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 8, 2016 6:58:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 7, 2016 14:42:20 GMT -5
We have an incredibly difficult schedule next year, so any notion that we no longer have a tough schedule is simply not true. The three Maui games, Maryland, Syracuse, and Uconn. That only leaves five OOC games. So -- without Kansas -- our schedule is similarly difficult as it was this past year.
And for exposure? I presume all the Maui games and the Cuse game will be on ESPN. The Maryland and UConn games both will be prominent, even if not on ESPN.
No one -- and I mean no one -- will remember that we dropped or cancelled this game.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 6, 2016 9:40:26 GMT -5
Jon Rothstein @jonrothstein Apr 4 This national title is obviously huge for Villanova, but it's also huge for the Big East: the term "power-five" is dead in college hoops. Is it though? I appreciate Rothstein's sentiment, but the term Power 5 in high D1 athletics won't be dead until football has gone the way of the dinosaur. UCONN won as a member of the AAC but that didn't all of a sudden vault the American up the ranks of hoops conferences. the bottom half of the American is, admittedly, PUTRID. It is like 5 DePauls. I do think this is different than the American. In that regard, maybe the American is most like the WCC. Gonzaga winning a title isn't going to change the perception of the WCC, nor should it. Same with UConn and the American. The American, to me, is not really much different than the the A-10 at this point. They may have one national power in their league (which the A-10 doesn't), but the A-10 makes up for that with more pretty good teams throughout the league. The A-10 almost always gets multiple teams in the field, frequently has a participant in the second weekend, and occasionally has a team make a big run. But rarely are any of their teams legitimate contenders. I think the American will be similar. All three of those leagues are clearly behind the Big East -- both in fact and in national perception. I think the term will stick around, since it's simply convenient short-hand. But the term "power five" will essentially include the Big East, as non-sensical as that is. Sort of like the Big 10 and Big 12 are nonsensical names. Even leading up to this Final Four, commentators were referring to it as containing only teams from "power" conferences without really analyzing how the Big East fit inside or outside of that term. Assuming we're able to continue putting 4+ into the field each year, having one or two (or more) in the second weekend most years, and the occasional run to the final weekend, that will continue. We're not going to be on the level of the ACC -- that's just reality unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 5, 2016 14:54:35 GMT -5
In any event, I don't think you're going to see any cut in the men's basketball budget, DFW. Well, how much is too much given declines in tickets and giving? Georgetown already spends more than all but 10-12 Division I programs and about $2 million more than the folks along the Main Line spend. As revenues go down, should GU spend even more? There's always a red line, obviously, in terms of financial losses. i don't know where that line is. But the goal is to win a championship and you spend what is reasonably necessary in an effort to achieve that goal. You pump in a little more during the down times to make up for fan interest and hope to reap the benefits (financial and otherwise) during the good times. But if you lower or raise the budget on an annual (or even biannual) basis based on external revenue, you risk achieving diminishing returns and entering a cycle of no return. Again, there's a red line -- if the revenues are terrible for a number of years (because the performance has been bad or other reasons), you need to reassess everything. But that's a much larger project involving other sports, etc. And, at least for me, that assessment would be something on the magnitude of five years away. (It's worth noting that if we had five more years akin to this one, we'd certainly end up saving salary dollars because we'd have likely just begun the era of a new head coach making far less....)
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 5, 2016 14:02:04 GMT -5
DFW, any insight into the self-sufficient thing? I find it hard to believe that a program that was self-sufficient 4-5 years ago would not be now, considering they are getting more money from TV revenue, but I could be wrong. Again, we don't know the numbers behind the curtain (the FY15 totals now list $10,357,033 revenues and $10,357,033 expenses, FWIW) but self-sufficiency is a function of three factors: television, tickets, and alumni giving, all of which are part of the operating budget. The TV money is relatively fixed, and while it may grind on the JTIII critics out there, it helps cover his salary as it moves upwards, win or lose, which is why the term of the contract provides him plenty of security. Indirectly, any strategy which flows the TV money into staff limits its effect as a whole across Athletics. The ticket money is variable and losses in ticket sales hit the bottom line in the form of deficits on the Verizon Center rent. Ticket sales are off 27% from 2010 and other than someone who absolutely wants to see Maryland (and/or Villanova), there's not likely to be a compelling need to buy season tickets, which generally drive the numbers on a per season average. The alumni giving is the wildcard in that the program has grown to expect a certain upward trajectory in donors and gifts which are at risk and speak to a assumption in Athletics that recent grads will support men's basketball as their predecessors 10, 20, 30 years ago did. If Hoop Club giving falls off in a noticeable way this year, TV and ticket sales do not make up that difference. That brings up the question I posed earlier--does a downturn in revenue force the staff to cut back on their budget, or is money simply routed away from other sports to cover the difference? We don't (and won't) know. That's the key -- at Georgetown and everywhere else. It's so easy to categorize expenses (and revenues) however you want to that the numbers are completely meaningless. How do schools at the Big 10 categorize revenue from their network, for example? Sure, they show football and men's basketball games, but there's also women's soccer and volleyball games on there. And what about support staff? At Georgetown, there are staff that work on all sports, even though for some of them, a majority (but not all) of their time is focused on men's basketball. Well, how are their salaries calculated? Obviously, our revenues should be relatively easy to calculate (the TV deal is all men's basketball, although the shrinking licensing money is harder to divvy up), but the expenses aren't. In any event, I don't think you're going to see any cut in the men's basketball budget, DFW.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 5, 2016 9:29:49 GMT -5
Ah I see, I guess communicating wasn't there strong suit then last night to recognize the mismatch on the floor. I thought they recognized it quite a bit, they just sucked at getting them the ball. UNC this year was better getting the ball to bigs off the glass than getting the ball from passes from the guards. They missed quite a few inside chippies in the championship game (and made more outside shots than usual), but I thought the biggest factor wasn't recognition, it was getting the ball to the bigs properly (execution) when they had advantages. As we know, Villanova is very, very good at limiting mismatches inside. Very similar to playing against the Cuse zone, I think you go into a game against Nova (if you have an inside presence) and you think "this is what I need to do and I'll be able to do it -- these guys are so small" and you can't fully prepare for their defensive quickness, toughness, and execution. Against Cuse, you've been told to "get it to the middle" against the zone, and when they take that away, you become ponderous with your ball movement. Which of course plays into their hands. Same here. Carolina got the ball to a wing and looked to post once they had a mismatch. That's the simple and most basic way to do things. Nova fronted effectively and helped from the weakside, as they always do. I'm sure UNC was prepared for that -- how could they not be? The textbook proper play there is to reverse the ball as quickly as possible and have your post player move across the lane. If he does that, he has his man pinned to his back due to the different angle, and it's an easy layup. You also (as against a zone) can use simple ball-fakes to try to get the defense to rotate too quickly. Nova knows that too, and so they pressure the ball so a reversal is hard. We never once saw UNC execute that successfully. Instead, the wing player froze -- and either dribbled back toward the middle (or penetrated himself) or passed slowly back toward the middle. Right into Nova's hands because now they can either switch back or rotate their defense generally to provide help. The other thing UNC never really tried? The way that we almost always successfully get the ball into the post in those circumstances. Have your guard set a back pick for the big up top, which doesn't give anyone the chance to front. Or use whatever big is getting fronted to set a pick for a different big on the other side. (We don't do that one, but plenty of teams do...) I agree that their offense was too vanilla. When you know your advantage is inside, and that means that to exploit that advantage, you need to be able to enter a post pass, you have to have multiple ways to do it because you know the other team is going to take something away. But you have to give a ton of credit to Nova. When a D shuts down an offense, the knee jerk reaction is always to blame the offense. By the way, to me, the entire key to their defense this year was Ochefu. He allowed them to switch all picks, and if you can effectively switch all picks, it makes communication on picks irrelevant. That takes a huge unknown out of the game. Ochefu was able to effectively guard little guys without fouling the entire year.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 5, 2016 7:37:19 GMT -5
The last 35 days plus of the season the Hoyas only won 2 games vs St. St. Johns and DePaul with a 6 game losing streak sandwiched between the wins. Do you really consider that an overall improvement? And the other team scored more than 80 pts in the last five losses. LJ and Ike were better, but there wasn't overall improvement. Here's what I wrote: "Believe it or not, we improved a fair amount too, overall. LJ got a lot better. Even Ike played well at the end of the year. The D, while bad, was noticeably better." You guys admit that LJ and Ike improved as the year went on. The problem was that Ike merely improved back to basically what he was all of his freshman year. I think Jesse improved too -- he was playing better in his backup role and then regressed somewhat when he was thrust into the starters' role. I don't know that anyone else noticeably improved as the year went on, but I don't think anyone regressed from start to finish. I said our D was still bad. In our six FIRST losses, we gave up 75+ points -- against worse opponents than in our last five losses. Those first six included Radford, Monmouth, Asheville, and Creighton. We even gave up 80+ in a win over a bad Wilmington team. So, I do think our team defense improved as the year went on. Not enough to beat decent or good teams. Basically, I wrote the equivalent of "we sucked this year -- really, really sucked; at the end of the year, we still sucked, but only really sucked." But that was too positive apparently.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 4, 2016 9:51:23 GMT -5
Why anyone would look at the addition of a potentially talented player at a position of need as anything but a positive -- particularly when the risk is low (two years of eligibility) -- is beyond me. Even if it just turns out to be depth -- that's something we need also. We've missed on guards, for sure. But I don't think it's fair to say that the staff has failed in recruiting the HS ranks altogether. DSR was a terrific player for us out of HS. LJ -- who really is a guard at this point -- also appears to be. That's two very good guards in three years. We've gotten killed on perimeter defense and for sure the staff has been short a guard or two -- I'm not sugarcoating it -- but this is exactly what you want to do in that situation. It also creates much better balance positionally for us going forward. I'd still love us to get a quick traditional guard, but if we're not going to (or if that is a year away), then this is the next best thing. Isn't this better than getting a low-rated high school guard that's going to tie up a scholarship for four years? Much better chance that this young man can come in and help right away than my hypothetical low rated frosh. And we may only have one more year of LJ. This is low risk - high ceiling. It's perfect given the circumstances. I agree. Given the circumstances this signing is ideal. I and others are not stating that. Would JT have gone to the JUCO ranks if he didn't miss out on multiple guards and if Tre met expectations? Would JT have gone to the JUCO ranks if he didn't promulgate his lack of need for a true point guard in his offense? The answer to your first question is: Of course not! But who cares? There are always going to be misses in recruiting. You try to minimize them. But unfortunately, sometimes those misses are going to be at the same position over several years. And when they are, you take extreme measures. To point out that we're short at the guard position on the day that a promising recruit at that position signs is like complaining that there used to be a dead spot on my lawn after I've already re-seeded it. Let's just play on the nice grass for one darned day! I'm not sure I really understand the second question. I don't think the issue is necessarily a "point guard" or the fact that he has said we don't need one. We've had a series of perfectly acceptable (on both ends) PGs here (JWall to Chris Wright to Markel). Were any program changers? No. Were any Chris Paul? No. But all were perfectly capable of playing PG on very successful teams, as evidenced by the fact that they did, in fact, play PG on very successful teams! The primary issue is the last few years. In any event, at least to me, the real issue at the perimeter positions the past couple of years has been the ability to penetrate and cause defenses to help (regardless of the position) and the ability to defend the perimeter. We don't know whether this signing really helps there, but it sounds like it may at least on the offensive end.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 4, 2016 9:32:15 GMT -5
Like with virtually every other topic, the truth is, I think, far more nuanced than many admit.
There is perception among the casual sports fan; there is perception among the college basketball fan; and there is perception among recruits.
The national press (that is, the articles folks are reading now) write this time of year for the casual sports fan. The folks that don't really watch any regular season games, watch the NCAAT merely to see upsets and root for their bracket, and then watch the "big games" at the very end of the event. That's the majority of American sports fans. To those folks -- the folks that only pay attention in March -- this new BE is very much a "second tier" league. It probably is "alone" in that second tier (behind the BCS conferences but ahead of the A-10s, WCCs and Americans of the world), but it's still second tier. This Villanova run does something to change that narrative. It won't change it completely -- not until we have a big year with three teams in the Sweet 16 or two in the Final four. And the problem is that with "only" ten teams, getting a lot of teams to later stages of the tournament is simply mathematically difficult. Here's the thing, though: who cares what those folks think? They don't drive our TV revenue (since they aren't watching regular season games that set that revenue). They aren't buying game tickets. They don't affect the perception held by the other two groups. Really, the only reason we (fans) care what they think are because of bragging rights with our buddies and neighbors. And I get that those bragging rights are real (indeed, they're the reason many people enjoy being fans!), but ultimately it has nothing to do with the long-term success or failure of the league or Georgetown. This is the group whose opinion is easiest to change, and its the loudest group, but don't mistake fungibility or noise for consequential.
There aren't very many "college basketball fans" if the regular season ratings are an accurate indication. But the college basketball fan is well aware of the Big East's overall success. These are the folks that know what "kenpom" means, that read articles and blog posts during the regular season, and that watch games aside from the one that involves just the one team they might casually root for. I know that it's a common narrative on this board that ESPN black-balls the league and its teams, but I certainly heard ESPN folks talking about BE teams this year. In any event, perhaps March success leads some of these folks to head to FS1 next year and watch a game or two that they otherwise wouldn't have, but I frankly doubt it. There are too many compelling games on ESPN that are easier to find. I just don't think we're going to change our viewership or interest based on tournament results. ESPN drives the bus in terms of college TV. I completely agree with those (as I've said before) who are very concerned about what happens once our TV deal goes away. I'm not complaining about the deal -- it was a fantastic result given the other options. And that's a ways into the future -- and maybe all leagues' deals have evaporated at that point -- but it is a concern. I just don't think it's a concern that our success or failure in the NCAAT will ultimately change all that much.
Finally, there's the recruits. They're all that matter, ultimately. Sure, they're watching teams in March, but of course they're paying extremely close attention all year to whatever teams they're considering. Success in the NCAAT helps the teams that are successful, but I don't think there's a huge bump to other teams in that league. That is, I can't imagine that Chris Lykes is sitting at home right now and saying "boy, I'm going to Georgetown because that way I get to play against Villanova twice a year."
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 4, 2016 9:11:45 GMT -5
Why anyone would look at the addition of a potentially talented player at a position of need as anything but a positive -- particularly when the risk is low (two years of eligibility) -- is beyond me. Even if it just turns out to be depth -- that's something we need also.
We've missed on guards, for sure. But I don't think it's fair to say that the staff has failed in recruiting the HS ranks altogether. DSR was a terrific player for us out of HS. LJ -- who really is a guard at this point -- also appears to be. That's two very good guards in three years. We've gotten killed on perimeter defense and for sure the staff has been short a guard or two -- I'm not sugarcoating it -- but this is exactly what you want to do in that situation. It also creates much better balance positionally for us going forward. I'd still love us to get a quick traditional guard, but if we're not going to (or if that is a year away), then this is the next best thing.
Isn't this better than getting a low-rated high school guard that's going to tie up a scholarship for four years? Much better chance that this young man can come in and help right away than my hypothetical low rated frosh. And we may only have one more year of LJ. This is low risk - high ceiling. It's perfect given the circumstances.
|
|