|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 3, 2016 14:55:53 GMT -5
And there aren't really that many small private schools even trying to win a championship, right? Twenty or so if i am being generous that seriously try year in and year out. Compared with oodles of bigger schools. Butler isn't even the only good example, though it merits noting that they had shots on both of their final two possessions to win the championship game. Gonzaga has had its share of flameouts, but they were in the elite 8 just last year, losing to the eventual champs. In the last ten years, Nova has been to the FF twice and Butler twice. Pretty good considering all the state schools out there. Oh, and some other private school came awfully close to playing for a title ten years ago as I recall..... You're pretty hard on Gonzaga Al, you called them "mediocre" in an earlier post.. Honestly I'd love for Gtown to have won at least 1 game in the last 8 tourney's.. 13 tourney wins in the last 8 years, gimme me some of that.. I just meant mediocre this year. They barely got a bid. But they have been a terrific program for the past 15 years. They have probably done exactly what you would hope for a team consistently in the field during that time. In 17 years, they have qualified every year and been a top four seed six times. One E8, five other S16, and eight other second round losses. Pretty damned good. No FF (famously) but aside from that, they've been everything you could want.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 3, 2016 14:10:54 GMT -5
Quigley here. I'm curious. Before this Nova run how many of us on this board really, really thought a small, private school not named Duke would ever win a national championship. As "thisjustin" points out I sure as hell never did. Folks, its been 30 years since one not named Duke did it. And if Nova does it, and does it in a way they've been doing it the last 2 weeks (with talent that comes from our own back yard!!) then hell yeah my expectations have changed. I mean....Butler went to the title game twice not too long ago 2010 and 2011... I don't know about anyone else but my feeling is if you can get to a title you can win a title... Apparently you do as well based on your comments above... And there aren't really that many small private schools even trying to win a championship, right? Twenty or so if i am being generous that seriously try year in and year out. Compared with oodles of bigger schools. Butler isn't even the only good example, though it merits noting that they had shots on both of their final two possessions to win the championship game. Gonzaga has had its share of flameouts, but they were in the elite 8 just last year, losing to the eventual champs. In the last ten years, Nova has been to the FF twice and Butler twice. Pretty good considering all the state schools out there. Oh, and some other private school came awfully close to playing for a title ten years ago as I recall.....
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 3, 2016 10:12:43 GMT -5
Another basketball clinic by Villanova, with three Maryland kids in the starting lineup. Where has Georgetown been in the last four years. Not even close. You'd think that'd be more of a shot at Maryland than at Georgetown.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 3, 2016 7:33:48 GMT -5
Dr. don't let kc bother you, just another poster trying to defend III. I find it funny though, the analogy of "I've go it good. I don't have to change anything or try to improve at all...:" Sounds about accurate for the past seven or eight years. Maybe something will light a fire because we sure haven't seen one. Until expectations change especially the post season expectation then nothing else will... The one good thing about this Nova run is that it has changed the expectations of the program in the eyes of the fan base. Enough of the crap shoot nonsense... No excuses, just win 2 games in the NCAA's.. If there is anything this Nova and Cuse run shows, it's that this thing is a crap shoot!!!! How can anyone conclude otherwise? The better team usually wins, but the worse team wins often enough that it's a crap shoot. Get there often enough as a high seed and you're going to eventually get hot/get the right matchup/get lucky that you make a deep run. When youre the better team, you need less of those things, but theyre still a factor over two, three, or four games. That's Nova this year. They're shooting the lights out! Get there often enough, period, and even as a low seed you'll get lucky occasionally. That's Cuse this year. Or Esh's sweet 16. Jay Weight didn't become a genius this year. We failed to get there (let alone as a high seed). That needs to change.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 3, 2016 7:24:59 GMT -5
Syracuse was incredibly fortunate to get into the field. They played a solid first-round game against a middling opponent. They then played a bad team coming off the biggest win in their lives. They then played a mediocre opponent in round 3 and needed a meltdown by that opponent to win. The only good team they played was UVA, who was in the process of blowing them out until they imploded. Predictably, in their only other game against a good team, they got beaten handily.
Nova HAS improved. But they were excellent all year. 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. We just had a long way to come, and of course our opponents were improving too, so it didn't show on the record sheet.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 1, 2016 16:06:25 GMT -5
WSJ article lists top 50 mens teams worth if they were on the open market (based on revenues, expenses, growth etc). Louisville number 1 at 301mm, UNC at 7 at $221mm, Miami, FSU, Arizona State at 48-50 spots at around $44mm. Georgetown not on list. Big East teams are Xavier at 26 (78mm) St Johns at 37 at $55mm. South florida is at 31 at $67mm above Florida at 41 ($50mm) interestingly enough. Hard to "trust" their calcs but food for thought.. Wonder if this was 1996 what this would look like? And where UCONN women would rank on this list? www.wsj.com/articles/how-much-is-your-college-basketball-team-worth-1459459516Further in the article, they show the full list. We are 52 (so just out of the top 50) and ahead of Nova (54). Interestingly, we're just behind DePaul, which seems crazy, but I'm guessing they really value the fact that DePaul is getting a new arena. Are there any teams in the top 50 that don't play at least a healthy number of games in a school-owned facility? Any others besides St. John's that don't play virtually all of their games in their own arena? There may be, but none jumped out at me. And obviously, the TV landscape has changed dramatically since 1996 (and 1985).... I don't think the UConn women would be as high as you think. They didn't sell out their games this year; their TV deal isn't too high. I don't think their revenues are as high as you might think.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 31, 2016 11:23:07 GMT -5
Broadus bent and broke rules at Binghamton. No doubt about it. Lost his job, and should have. But before you fall off that high horse of yours Buckets - you don't think it was made clear to him that he is fortunate to get this second chance, and that there will be zero tolerance for even a whiff of improper conduct here? We are not a perfect program, absolutely. But I will hold our reputation up against 99% of the Division 1 programs any day without hesitation. The only other thing I would add with particular respect to NCAA rules is that it's so little understood how little control the institution or even the coaching staff has over certain things that could result in a "dirty program" label. If one of us contacts a recruit, a current player, or a family member, and does something nefarious (and in today's age, it's pretty easy to contact someone), that redounds on the program. Certainly, schools and staffs can do things to educate, insulate, and otherwise attempt to prevent something like that (or any other type of violation) from occurring, but preventing it completely is impossible. And it only takes one unlucky scenario to undo decades of work. Graduation rates? Honestly, I'd rather we not give out sham degrees. We provide an entrance opportunity to kids who may (or may not) have had one otherwise; we provide the resources once they're here to assist with their academics; we presumably do advise them to take certain classes and certain majors (though nothing like what Carolina does one presumes!); and we make it more or less free. The rest is up to them. To me, if someone fails to take advantage of those opportunities, and either gets suspended by the program, fails out of school, or leaves school early for one reason or another, that's not on our collective conscience. Or at least it shouldn't be. Indeed, I'd rather we not lower our standards to permit a Greg to continue playing. Things like the APR and other metrics are important to determine which schools use "school" as a complete sham; other than that, I don't think they have much value.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 31, 2016 8:57:50 GMT -5
Let me respond. I have never said that these teams don't have really good bigs. North Carolina has great players at every position. However, when sports commentators talk about North Carolina, the first thing out of their mouths is "Marcus Paige." For Oklahoma, it is Buddy Hield. For Villanova it is Archidiacono and Hart, and for Syracuse is the Freshman Richardson. The point I am making (and you may disagree), is that our failure this past year was due to subpar guard play. The way the game is played now, guard play is key. If I am right you are going to see that trend continue next year (especially with the loss of DSR even though this was a down year for him). I would like to be proven wrong, but if I am correct, I don't expect much improvement next year. When people talk about North Carolina, they talk about Brice Johnson. Using him more. How good he's playing. Etc. He's 29-46 in the NCAAT. Think about that! Sure, they talk about Paige, and his resurgence, but it's Johnson that is the key. And when people talk about Cuse, they talk about Roberson. His ability to anchor that defense. Rim protection. And of course his rebounding. Richardson was the offensive key last game, but he's not the story with Cuse. I'm not saying that guard play isn't crucial. Of course it is. But what is it about guard play that is crucial (other than competent ball-handling of course)? It's that those players (more than bigs) are guys that tend to hit threes, so they're more valuable in that sense given the importance of the three in today's game. And it's that those players tend to be the ones that can get into the lane for one reason or another. But none of those skills, really, is position-dependent. Thought experiment, Jerry: If everything else had been equal this year, except that Ike and DSR both shot 40% from three (instead of 27% and 33% respectively), how many more games do we win? A lot! More than enough to get into the NCAAs, and probably enough to get a reasonably high seed. Now, our lack of penetration ability limited DSR's ability to shoot much higher, because he was so closely guarded. But the vast majority of Ike's threes were open ones. And if Ike had made a bunch more threes? Presumably, he would have had a somewhat easier time penetrating -- since he would have been more closely guarded. Again, he wouldn't have been a plus penetrator by any stretch, but it would have led to him getting (or facilitating) an easy basket or two every game. And it's all cumulative...it leads to better looks for everyone. He's not a guard. I'd much rather have a guard that can penetrate -- I don't disagree. Indeed, I think we have one in LJ (though it'd be nice to have more). But I think there are lots of ways to be successful. We just weren't good at any of them!
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 31, 2016 7:24:09 GMT -5
This is kind of silly, gentlemen, even for us. North Carolina DOES wow you with its bigs. They're here because they have the ability to use their bigs. They are at their best when they play inside out. And Syracuse doesn't really wow you with anything! But to the extent they have a positive skill on offense, it's that their bigs are exceptional offensive rebounders. So, that's certainly two teams that make significant use of their bigs. Certainly Villanova isn't there because of Ochefu, but he's a significant part of what they do. That is, even they play inside out whenever they can, despite the "guard heavy" offense they are known for.
In any event, there's lots of ways to win. But it's very hard to win if you can't get the ball in the lane somehow (penetration, back door cut, in the hands of a big), and make an appropriate aggressive scoring or passing move. We couldn't do that consistently this year. You can make up for it with exceptional three-point shooting, and we didn't have that either. All of these teams -- and virtually any good team -- has the ability to get into the lane somehow and do something positive.
I don't think the four teams in the Final Four are evidence one way or the other that penetrating guard play is underrated or overrated. Oklahoma and North Carolina have exceptional NBA lottery level talent. That's why they're here. Syracuse is here because, let's face it, they were very lucky. And Villanova is here because they're a very, very good all-around team.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 29, 2016 11:01:54 GMT -5
To the above point, I think we're about two bonehead turnovers a game from significantly more wins every year including this one. Kenpom classifies this volatility as "luck." But we're in the bottom half of "luck" a lot (like 6 of the last 8 years many times 200+). So just as with our "crapshoot" issues in tournaments, fewer possessions when your biggest flaw is inconsistency in valuing the basketball means a bad stretch is more likely to do you in. Well, KenPom takes those turnovers into account. They'd count as possessions without baskets, so they should already turn up in our ranking. I should have put this in my other post, but I think the biggest thing to remember with KenPom is that it is designed to be purely predictive. It is NOT designed to rank teams based on performance. All it's really designed to do is allow you to somewhat accurately what would happen if Team A played Team B. And if you look at the teams around us in the rankings, you'd expect us to play close games with them.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 29, 2016 10:32:07 GMT -5
We won the Kenpom golden turkey for the highest-ranking team with a losing record and did so losing every single hustle stat on the board. Of course this team can be good next year. Nobody would be as disappointed as they are if the talent weren't there. And our "recruiting" class basically has White and Agau in it at the very least. If Mosely makes a difference or we land a transfer PG that's a bonus but no way this team should sandbag expectations. Can one of the Big Data Dudes on the board explain why KenPom always loves us. Even our recent craptastic teams (09, 14 and 16) have ranked no lower than 65. And the 2009 team, which was steaming hot putrid garbage by the end, was #34! What is it about our stats that KenPom likes so consistently? It's a great site overall, but seems awfully misleading when it comes to the Hoyas. Or maybe we just underachieve... All KenPom cares about is what you score and what you give up on a per possession basis, adjusted only for the strength of the team you play and where. Actual wins and losses are completely irrelevant. So if you beat three good teams by 20 points, and lose to six equivalently good teams by two points each, KenPom (in a relative sense) is going to love you compared to what the polls or fans would think. 2009 is a great example if you look at the scores of the games. We finished the year 3-7 (the hot putrid garbage to which you refer). Here were five of those losses (with KenPom ranks in parentheses). at Baylor by 2 (34) Louisville by 16 (5) Marquette by 6 (19) at Cuse by 4 (16) Cincy by 2 (90) The two others were a bad St. Johns team, but still, you see how KenPom would rate those losses as -- by and large -- not bad given the strength of the teams and the scores. The three wins were by 8 vs. DePaul (213); at Nova by 2 (9); and at S. Fla. by 25 (151). That's a great, close win against a premiere team; a reasonably close win against a putrid team; and a blowout of a bad team. So, if you put it all together (and, remember, it's looking at the whole season -- where we did beat Cuse, UConn, and UMD among others), you can see how the computer would see things a lot differently. Think about our seasons as a whole -- it's very rare for us to get blown out. The formula is supposed to take into account pace, obviously, but I think it does over-state the performance of teams that play at a slower pace, generally. I can't prove that. But I think it doesn't properly take into account that a team playing at a higher pace may not score much more on a per possession basis than a team that plays at a slower pace, but still wins more games comfortably. I think that's one of the reasons it overstates us. We are more likely in some ways, I think, to lose close games when we aren't good. That is, like this year, we might stink, but still not got blown out. KenPom likes that, but it doesn't ultimately help us. To make the same point a different way, North Carolina might win by 15 points on average at a very fast pace and our games we win by 5. That may be equivalent in the KenPom formula based on differing paces. But, to me, it's easier to avoid actual real-life losses when you're winning by 15 at a higher pace. (Of course, even that is too simplistic: we have won our share of close games at a slow pace that I'm sure a team playing at a higher pace would have lost -- Virginia and Cuse is a classic example. Potentially, had Virginia maintained its slower pace, it wins a tight game.) EDIT: Bottom line: I don't think it's perfect. But it does certainly identify situations where you might be better or worse than the score-line or wins and losses would indicate. This year is a pretty good example. Check out the KenPom rankings and look at the teams it thinks were really under-seeded. Far more than is random did better in the NCAAT than you'd expect (Wichita, Gonzaga, Syracuse, Stephen F. Austin jump out).
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 29, 2016 9:36:11 GMT -5
A lot of well thought out and well reasoned posts. However, I would like to go back to the question I posed. Looking at the guard play we have seen in the NCAA tourney, how much has our guard play (or lack thereof) contributed to our poor season?? A really talented guard can penetrate and then, depending on the situation, either pass off or finish. I am not sure we have a player on our roster who has those skills. LJ, almost never passes the once he penetrates. Fortunately, he is so talented, that he frequently can finish in spite of dribbling into a crowd. I would be interested in your view points on this. I think it contributed a lot. But I wouldn't limit it to "guard play." I would broaden it to the specific skill-set (penetrate effectively and either score or dish) that you describe. It can be a three or a four that brings that skill set. (Look at Niang on Iowa State, as one example.) In some cases it can even be a five (by drawing doubles in the post and effectively finding open men -- Ochefu is very good at that; Josh wasn't terrible at it last year for us). That last example is not as fool-proof, because he has to get the ball in the post first unlike a penetrating guard, but it's effective too. The point is that if LJ had, I think, been better at the dishing part, we'd have been a lot better this year. Or if anyone else could have beaten their man and gotten into the lane and drawn help, we'd have been better. DSR couldn't. But just as importantly, Ike and Marcus couldn't either. (And both of our fives were bad passers.) I think if any of them was capable of somewhat consistently drawing help (either one on one or through a PNR), we'd have been an NCAA team this year, even given our putrid defense. To be better next year offensively, we'll need at least one guy on the court that can do it. LJ is the most obvious possibility, but he may not realistically add that skill. Otherwise, you'd hope Ike or Marcus gets quicker with the ball. Or that we bring someone in that can. (I suppose Jesse could suddenly draw doubles and/or develop into a plus passer, but that seems less likely.) (The added plus is that if you're quick enough to get by your man and draw help, you're usually quick enough to be at least an adequate defender.)
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 29, 2016 8:56:08 GMT -5
Don't you think though that realistically we are two years away from being really good again (assuming everyone stays)? I don't perceive the team making the big leap it needs to make in one year. This isn't a criticism of JTIII directly, although the lack of development this year is one reason I think we have a lot of ground to make up before we are good again. Maybe - but it's not out of the realm of possibility. Last year, Seton Hall seemed to be in complete disarray. Guys were transferring out (including one who left mid-season), they sputtered to the finish, there was talk of major locker room discord, etc etc etc. This year, they were solidly #3 in the conference, won the BET and got a 6 seed in the tournament. Setting aside the first-round loss, that's a pretty good season from a group that - one year ago - was in a pretty similar place that Georgetown seems to be. Not saying that it will happen, but I wouldn't discount the possibility. DSR and Hayes are gone, Mosely comes in, the Peak/Copeland/Campbell/White group take a step up, Johnson and/or Agau gives us something we didn't expect...who knows? There are a lot of variables. Next year's team - despite having many of the same players - may look nothing like this year's team. Of course, it could all go off the rails - but I don't want to imagine what that might look like. Right. I think people forget that we lost a great many games by essentially a basket or two. We have to replace two starters -- I get it -- but it's not crazy to think we could be pretty good. National title good? Well, no. But safely qualify for NCAAT good (which means reasonable chance at second weekend good). And you take your chances from there. A lot has to go right, but not a crazy amount. The hard part with really challenging for a national title (aside from a lucky Cuse-like run) is that you need either: (1) a transcendent one-and done player (or two) and enough limited talent around him or them in that one year they're on the team -- thats really really hard; (2) a player that becomes a transcendent player in the middle of his career, and you happen to have talent around them to take advantage of it timing wise. Provy couldn't really pull it off this year based on other talent. We couldn't quite do it with Otto. It's hard for a team not consistently getting top-level talent to make this work, but certainly teams do. (3). A great player that sticks around even if they didn't have to. Think Hield or Valentine. So, you have to have developed a great player, and you have to luck out by his wanting to stay. (4). A group of very good college players that are balanced class-wise, or all become juniors or seniors together. This may include college stars that don't seem to translate well to the NBA or just guys (like Nova) that are all very good but not good enough to have realistically left early. This is hard in its own way because you need to pick and/or develop five or six kids very well. Four is our realistic model. And if you look at teams with success, they were veteran teams by and large. Or at least teams with a preponderance of veterans. I know we had Monroe, so we had a crack at one or two for two years, but that's really hard to make work. The dream would be that everyone takes a step forward next year (even a small one), virtually all are experienced, our PG play is good enough for one reason or another, and we are pretty good at every position. Maybe another step forward by LJ leads him to leave, so next year would be the year to do some damage. But you could envision an LJ that is a bit better on both ends surrounded by our other pieces doing some damage. That sort of LJ would be a first-team BE (or better, frankly) type player. Surround him with a four and a five man that can play passably in the post and shoot 35% or better from three (that part is pretty easy to envision), and surround him with a three man (Ike or Paul) that resembles even what we got at the end of this year from that spot, and then complete it with passable point play (that is, significant improvement from what we got from Tre this year). And you've got yourself a fine, fine team. Lots of ifs. But not crazy.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 28, 2016 17:43:50 GMT -5
Bottom line is that you need either (i) a great TEAM or (ii) a transcendent player (e.g., Buddy Heild) with a good team around them. We notice good guard play when watching the tournament because in most offenses, those are the guys who have the ball in their hands the most. But look at the rebounding from UNC, which ND had no answer for. Last year in the tournament, Townes and Kaminsky were dominant. Villanova, despite not having a typical frontcourt, has really skilled big men who more than held their own on the glass and defensively. Do you need good guards? Of course. You need good players at every position. That's a great recipe for success. But, in the case of Villanova, who is that transcendent player? There's another recipe for success in March and that is strong play and leadership by your upperclassmen and good overall balance. Wright has done a great job of continously feeding that balance and leadership. Villanova is that (i) option. They're a great team. They have good players all over. Five guys average 23 minutes or more (about 70% of all minutes) and all five average 10 or more points per game. None averages more turnovers than assists. Four of the five (all but Ochefu) shoot threes at 35% or better. Four of the five shoot 2s at 50% or better (and Arch is at 49%). All but Ochefu shoot free throws at 75% or better. That's just on offense.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 28, 2016 15:50:53 GMT -5
Cuse was getting to loose balls and rebounds, UVA wasnt. They also choked to the Syracuse press and made some bad decisions when they broke the press with their 2 upperclassmen all-conference guards. Why did we lose to Radford, Monmouth, UNC-A and almost UNC-W at home this year? Was it lack of talent? I don't think so. We had more talent than many teams we played this year. The issue was game plan and execution. "Heart" maybe isn't the best word for our issues. I believe Fox's Donnie Marshall put it best with: Pistachios! He also added leadership. While Rafferty mentioned that DSR let the game come to him, Donnie Marshall answered something like "maybe he needs to go get the game". Is that the cliched "heart" or "wanting it it more"? It's simply being aggressive, having cojones and showing leadership. I don't know what that means, PR. Does it mean Ike had too much "pistachios" (because he shot a ton and didn't make them)? We probably would have been more successful if he had shot less. Same with Tre. If DSR was a guy that could consistently blow by his man (like a Buddy Hield) or was shooting an absurd percentage from three, then I would agree. But he wasn't this year! I think he (correctly) realized that the only way this team was going to succeed was if the Ikes of the world had big games. He wasn't going to score 25 every night and lead us to a win. There were games he tried and it didn't work. So, what do you want him to do? Our fifth and sixth straight losses at the end of the year (at Marquette and at Nova) -- the final possible chances for us to get in the tournament. At Nova he was 1-7 (1-4 from three) in the first half. That's a lack of cojones? That's just a lack of making baskets! At Marquette? 3-9 in the first half. That's a lot of shots! And 7-17 in the game. (BTW: He also had 8 boards and 9 assists against only four turnovers in that Marquette game. If we win that game, we're lauding is all-around leadership in what would have been a temporarily season-continuing win.)
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 28, 2016 15:32:40 GMT -5
Cuse was getting to loose balls and rebounds, UVA wasnt. They also choked to the Syracuse press and made some bad decisions when they broke the press with their 2 upperclassmen all-conference guards. Why did we lose to Radford, Monmouth, UNC-A and almost UNC-W at home this year? Was it lack of talent? I don't think so. We had more talent than many teams we played this year. The issue was game plan and execution. "Heart" maybe isn't the best word for our issues. The press sped up Virginia, but it wasn't like Virginia had trouble with the actual press. In their first three possessions after Cuse put on the press, Virginia made a three, missed a contested layup, and made a layup. Then they had a turnover in the frontcourt after breaking the press. Then another. Seems pretty bad. But that's five possessions and five points. And no turnovers in the back court. Which, statistically, is average. And average from that point out should have been good enough. We move on. Then a layup after beating the press. Then the turnover in the back court on that play where the ball got thrown off Brogdon out of bounds. Then a missed layup by Brogdon after aggressively beating the press. Then they missed a jumper in the frontcourt after beating the press and pulling it back out. Overall? Seven points in nine possessions on the Cuse press. That's bad, but it's not horrifically bad. They only had one turnover in the back court. Their mistake, if there was one, was in not pulling the ball back out every time. But that's tough when you have a series of two on ones. So, why did Cuse come back? Well, it's not talked about as much, but the Cuse went seven for seven (including two threes) with 4-4 from the line on those same nine possessions. And then scored on their next three (if you count Richardson following up his own miss to score as one possession). 20 points in 9 possessions. Basically double what they generally score on a per possession basis -- and against one of the nominally top defenses in America. If Cuse merely scores at an average clip, they're still down 10 or so with three minutes to play instead of the game being essentially tied. Did the press give them some energy? For sure. Would Virginia have been better served by just pulling everything out after breaking it? Maybe, but it wasn't like they really were scoring much in the half-court during that stretch either, so it may have just drawn Cuse's comeback out further! Did the Cuse get suddenly hot? Yes, absolutely. That's why they won. My point simply is that it was far more a defensive meltdown than an offensive meltdown. Cuse didn't get a lot of easy baskets off turnovers and the press. They just suddenly got hot. Virginia had a fair number of turnovers, but they also got pretty good looks overall.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 28, 2016 11:25:32 GMT -5
We havent been a slowdown/walk it up Princeton team ever since Otto left. Last years the pace has been as fast as you could want it. Every game I watched had four guys behind the arc passing it around. Then with 7 seconds left on the shot clock the player with the ball frantically looked for DSR to take the shot. If it wasn't possible then we'd chuck up a shot from nowhere. This years offense was a perfect example of the need to stop playing 1950's ball and play a style that will attract players to Georgetown. Honestly, I think that's because we stunk, not because of our offensive philosophy. We tried to get quick penetration and kicks. But we couldn't penetrate. And we couldn't kick. So, all we could do was pass it around. Notre Dame last night? That's 1950s basketball!
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 28, 2016 11:23:16 GMT -5
It's quite obvious that Quade Green is Jay Wright's top choice in the 17 class as he's been recruiting Green as hard and longer then JT3 has been recruiting Lykes. Green has recruiting has taken a recent uptick with offers from Arizona and Louisville in the last few weeks. Also Jay Wright is mentioned in connection to Trevon Duval who is probably the best PG in high school regardless of class. Duval to Villanova is more of a stretch but if they win the championship, you never know what doors that may open. Lykes seems to be lower on the totem pole in terms of PG's Villanova is currently recruiting but that could change during the Spring and summer. I think VCU and Miami are more of a threat then Villanova at this time with Miami being the dark horse. Lykes seems to think that VCU plays faster and the style of play may look more appealing but he needs to understand the reason we aren't faster and the style and offense didn't look that great this past season was because the team didn't have a true PG on the roster especially one with the skills Lykes possess. He has tremendous familiarity with the Georgetown offense as Gonzaga college runs a very similar offense as to what JT3 ran when Chris Wright was running the offense at Georgetown so Chris Lykes knows he can excel in the offense as he has at Gonzaga College. If anyone needs a reminder of what a TRUE PG looks like in JT3's offenses H4E you brought up some old heartache. You cannot convince me that that team wouldn't have won a C'Ship if AFree doesn't get sick. That team had all of the pieces that you needed to win bigtime and they would have had a much better seed if Austin continued playing the way he played pre-diabetes. Not to mention that we beat both teams fairly easily that played for the C'Ship. For me that is the one that got away. Even more than Otto and the Miracles........... Agreed completely. They had some bad losses (including, obviously, at the end) and generally had issues at the end of the year after Free got sick. And the schedule was brutal. But that team was as good as anyone in the country that year. Look at the speed that Chris ran those dribble-handoff plays. As so many have said, DSR was much more like an AFree -- except that AFree had Chris and Jason as running mates. And obviously Monroe (along with a competent additional big in Vaughn). And depth with Henry and Hollis (and, for that matter, Vee and Jerrelle). But the "Free got sick" thing is a bit of a red herring. They went (I think) 4-1 including a great run to the BET final after his diagnosis -- a run that got them a three seed. Like Michigan State this year, we just ran into a bit of a buzz saw in the NCAAT on a day that we didn't play our best. Ohio shot 56% from 3 and nearly 60% from two -- we didn't play terrific defense, but a lot of those were very contested. We actually shot reasonably well, but we turned it over eighteen freaking times. Ughhh.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 28, 2016 9:16:01 GMT -5
People have a hard time admitting to it because Cuse does it. I get that. But, playing a 2-3 zone ALL the time is very effective if you can do it right. I know they pressed last night, and that helped them, but a zone keeps you out of foul trouble, and lets you play 6-7 guys all night. Yes, you are going to give up more 3 than you like but it still neutralizes offenses. A big part of that comeback was that Syracuse had like 3 fouls in the 2nd half until 8-9 minutes left in the game. I said from day 1 that III should have stayed at the zone all year. I know we sucked at it, but it couldn't have been worse than the parade of 30+ fouls a night. I hope we go back to it next year. We should be practicing it from day 1. It's very, very difficult to play the zone like they do. And, having watched so many of their games now for longer than I care to admit, Boeheim has gotten better and better at it as time has gone on. First, they recruit specifically to the zone. They have long wing spans all over the court. Relatedly, guys who are good in the zone wouldn't be good at all playing a straight man for various reasons. (Their guards, for example, don't need to prevent dribble penetration.) Second, they're extremely good at contesting at the rim without fouling. Why? because the guys at those spots are, by definition, always "helping." They aren't guarding a man. So, they don't have to worry about trying to stay in front or body someone up -- the sorts of things that get big men fouls. Instead, they're almost always sliding over from somewhere else and sticking their arms straight up. Sure, they get away with contact there, but by and large, they're very well drilled in it. That's very hard to teach. But the fact that they never play any other defense makes it easier. Third, and most importantly, they are able to take away specific things depending on who they're playing. I think this is the biggest mistake their opponents make. Commentators, fans (like us), and it seems to me opposing teams always fall into the lazy analysis that you need to force the ball to the foul line, make them collapse, and then pass accordingly. But if that's what you're always trying to do, they'll basically turn their zone into a 3-2 and take that away. Or, if like Gonzaga, you're trying to post up, they'll take that away. You have to do different things against them -- run different rotations; go five out then four out then three out; etc. Anyway, I think we would have given up more uncontested layups (because we didn't know how to rotate) and our bigs would have gotten into more foul trouble (because when they did rotate, it would have been late, and they would have fouled). It would have cut down on fouls to the guys playing at the top of the zone, and maybe helped LJ a bit if he were playing there, but I don't think it would have been a net positive. Bottom line: it's HARDER to play a decent zone than it is to play decent man. That's not true in eighth grade, where you can just pack in a zone and dare teams to shoot. But it's true at this level where you can't do that.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 28, 2016 9:06:21 GMT -5
MCI, I'm certainly not going to tell you what you should or shouldn't expect. I do note that you are expecting either a 1 or a 2 seed in the NCAAT. Any team that beats all the cupcakes in the OOC, wins all but one OOC game against the good opponents, finishes in the top 2 in conference, and gets to the BET final is going to be no worse than a 2 seed. Eh...you may be right. Though a third seed could result from that or even a fourth seed if the conference RPI takes a hit because not enough good players returned overall for the league. Maybe. My point simply was that you expect us to be very, very good next year. A huge improvement over this year. Which is fine. I expected us to be very, very good this year!
|
|