|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 27, 2016 22:36:10 GMT -5
This is dependent only on the players whom have eligibility to return actually end up returning.... 1)Stop with the No Moral Victory Parade. For the last half dozen or so years it seems as if the Hoyas meet a few highly ranked and well regarded teams early in the season only to come away with one victory or maybe none at all. The games are close though which makes it all the more frustrating. Two seasons ago it was against the likes of Wisconsin and Kansas. This season it was against the likes of Maryland and Duke. I understand it isn't fair for Gtown to win all of these contests every year, but if the program wants to set a tone and raise the level of expectations (including possibly their own), the Hoyas will need years in which they actually win most if not all of these games. Next season if Maryland comes in as depleted as it looks like they will the Hoyas need to BEAT them....even if Verizon has more Terp fans. If the Hoyas play in another pre-season tournament then they are OVERDUE to actually have the stones to win one of those @#$% things. The Hoyas should be able to match up against Kansas no matter if the game is played in DC or in Lawrence. The Hoyas by all means better beat a UConn team at home that they should have beaten on the road this past season. And the Hoyas better be ready to take care of business at Syracuse. If the Hoyas lose one of these games so be it. That is still very good. But to lose more than one suggests more of the same. 2)The Hoyas won't start in any preseason Top 25s but they need to win enough games early in to get in the Top 25 as soon as possible. And then...stay there for the remainder of the @#$% season. Enough of this nonsense. Even in Porter's last season the team started off horribly enough that it took forever to get into the Top 25. Going on a win streak for over a month of games cemented our place in that Top 25. Over the past three seasons though the Hoyas have only been ranked for a few weeks total. That's not getting it done. I realize some like to spend each early part of the season on this board dismissing the notion of the worthiness of the Top 25 ("we don't need it", "I'd rather we sneak up on teams", "let us be seen as the underdogs"). Once I was even guilty of that. But it is clear that one important way of staying relevant in this new Big East era in which the media (local included) goes out of its way to ignore you, is to put yourself in a position in which the media has no choice but to cover you. Being ranked would do that for the Hoyas and provide more press. But since, as I pointed out already, the Hoyas won’t start off in any preseason Top 25s, they must go out and win the BIG games that I discussed in the previous paragraph while also avoiding the season-killing losses to the midmajors that plagued them this season. 3)A top two finish in the Big East, with an all-out effort to finish number one. Yeah, I said it. Or wrote it. I understand who Villanova is likely to return as well as Xavier. I get the fact that there is always a possibility of Whitehead returning for Seton Hall. And if Marquette gets their big man to return for one more year they have the potential to be as good as anyone. And I don’t care. There was to much talent on this Gtown roster this year to be that bad and next year, depending on my condition of all guys returning there will still be too much talent and now even more experience for this team NOT to challenge for the BE crown. We would need to rebound next season like Seton Hall did this season but unlike SH the players on next year’s Gtown squad will at least have the benefit of having gone to the tourney two years prior. If you don’t think Peak has the talent to be a First Team All Big East you weren’t paying attention. If you don’t think Copeland has the potential to be up there as well as long as he puts in the work then you’re being overly negative. If you don’t think a healthy Paul White can contribute positively then you are sleeping on that kid. Not to mention that Derrickson was further along as a frosh than Jennings was as freshman for Villanova. And also that Govan, depending on if the Marquette guy returns, would be the most talented big man in the conference. Then there are guys like Mourning and Johnson that I think very highly of who I feel can take the next step as well as the potential of the Louisville transfer whose name escapes me at this moment. Point is the team has talent on its roster to beat anyone like it did at Xavier this year. If the team needs another ballhandler or two then so be it. Its III’s job to take care of that. And I expect him to do so. 4)Sweep Providence. Good grief. To be owned by the Friars (four straight losses, five out of the last six) is inexcusable. Two seasons ago the Hoyas should have won both games and let them get away. This past season the Hoyas were competitive but again lost both. Enough of this. The team and program is going anywhere if III allows his squad to keep being owned by programs like the Friars. You can make an argument that in the three years of the BE-Fox era the three top programs have been Nova, Xavier and Providence. And the Hoyas have been dominated by all three. That must change. And that change should occur first at least with a Dunn-less Friars. But if the guys from Rhode Island sweep us again then III shouldn’t even get another year. 5)Make it to the @#$% championship of the Big East Tournament. Last time I checked Syracuse, UConn, Louisville, Pitt and even freakin’ Notre dame are not in the Big East anymore. That means the path to a championship game played on a Saturday night at MSG is a much easier one than previously. FOX/FS1 has been nice enough to give Gtown the opportunity of at least ten years of appearing in such a game and so far the Hoyas have squandered three of those years. III was talking crap a few years ago when he told the media that the New Big East should be called the Georgetown conference considering how Gtown was leading the way and dictating terms to Fox. It rubbed some non Gtown fans the wrong way and even caught the negative attention of some media guys like Feinstein. And three years later our coach looks like a fool. It is time for him to earn his paycheck and live up to his own big expectations. We need to be playing on national TV at MSG next season in the championship game for the BE. Period. It’s a good tool for recruiting and it proves we are actually serious about an NCAA tourney run. 6)If the team is assured of an NCAA bid (sorry….WHEN the team is assured) please no more large celebration gathering of everyone on campus around the TV screens for the media to cover and the world to see. If III wants to be serious and change his fortunes, then he should consider changing his script and have a more private gathering with his team. He keeps wanting to put together this big party as if the main goal has been achieved. Isn’t he sick of that by now? Does he at least believe in bad luck by this point? 7)Last of all….make it to the second weekend of the NCAA tourney, particularly if the team ends up with a 4 seed or better. No excuses. Get it done. Sweet Sixteen or bust. 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.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 27, 2016 19:58:58 GMT -5
If Syracuse somehow makes it to the title game - I vote for the nuclear option. DFW - get out of Texas. DFW needs to get out now to avoid the stench.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 27, 2016 19:33:03 GMT -5
They barely shot any! One between the nine minute mark and the one minute mark. I'm not sure what you were watching. They lost because they took congested twos at the rim. Played right into the press. Take an open layup, but not that. #32 chucked up at least 2 in the last 10 minutes I believe. And turned it over twice. Virginia needed a PG!! No. 32 (Parrantes) made a three at the 9:33 mark and then took and missed another around the five minute mark. He did miss another J, but it wasn't a three. But otherwise, they actually took the ball pretty hard to the hoop (including against the press). They just couldn't finish. They weren't terrible shots, but they were contested, and it did serve to speed them up. They only had that one turnover on the save going out of bounds against the press, I think. Otherwise, they broke it very easily. And attacked. They did basically what you would teach them to do. They just didn't score. So, I don't think guard play was the issue (if you're being serious). And yes, they turned it over a ton (including Parrantes) -- they inexplicably insisted on trying to dribble through the damned zone. And that missed front end of the 1-1 down the stretch was huge. Would have put a lot more game pressure on Cuse.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 27, 2016 19:19:03 GMT -5
How soft is Virginia? Let's just chuck 3pointers the last 5 minutes. They barely shot any! One between the nine minute mark and the one minute mark. I'm not sure what you were watching. They lost because they took congested twos at the rim. Played right into the press. Take an open layup, but not that.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 26, 2016 13:04:14 GMT -5
Gotta feeling one of these days III will have to, you know, beat some of those teams for a recruit, particularly a local one. Believe it or no it happens all the time each year with five star and high end four star recruits going to other schools other than UNC, UK, Kansas and Duke. oh I know we will at some point. I just think he is about hit 5 star status and be pursued by everyone. It just depends on the kid. Some want to stay home no matter who is pursuing them. Some dont want to be at home regsrdless. And some are intrigued by the prospect of being a "savior" for a program. Many are just interested in the best fit at the best program. And others, of course, follow the bright lights regardless.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 26, 2016 8:22:23 GMT -5
In an effort to move forward from the JTIII coaching discussion thread that has been interesting on both sides but isn't finding common ground I thought it may be more productive to hear what expectations for next year and moving forward should be for this staff. I'll start with my own for next season: 1. Out-of-conference schedule - Win a game or two that we shouldn't but don't drop any bad losses 2. BE performance - Finish top 3 or 4 in conference 3. NCAA seeding - Secure NCAA bid regardless of seed 4. NCAA tournament performance - Win at least one game in the tournament if we are higher seeded team as 6 or better. And beyond: 5. Longer term - No more let downs of a non NCAA tournament season (let alone losing record) and move forward with at least one run to an elite 8 or better in next three seasons. I think I agree completely with 1-4. As for 5, if you're saying that we should make the NCAAT each of the next three years given what has happened the last three, I agree. Obviously qualifying every year into infinity isnt going to happen. As this and every tournament shows, so much (calls, matchups, etc.) has to go right for virtually any team exceot for the truly elite to get to the elite 8. So I guess I'd say sweet 16 there. To me, making it to the second weekend is the key. There's not much difference perception-wise between sweet 16 and elite 8.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 25, 2016 23:09:30 GMT -5
Gonzaga is pillow-soft. Loses to another double digit seed. Certainly Sabonis and Wiltjer were. Wiltjer didn't even try to get that defensive rebound that gave Cuse the lead. And Sabonis couldn't do anything in traffic. He didn't even really try. How they didn't annihilate the zone I'll never know. Just get Wiltjer at the foul line the entire game. And instead of posting Sabonis up every single time, mix it up a bit and go high/low.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 25, 2016 9:35:26 GMT -5
Adding this comment here b/c it wasn't covered/ reached in the Alford discussion. Agree with the general sentiment, but not with the ultimate decision on the Coach. It's over a week since season end and as far as I can tell, there's no communication from the Coach or AD. When you appeal to the alumni for years for support in building a new hoops facility, when you set post-season expectations that you fall miles short of, and when the program is clearly not moving forward it doesn't help that the AD and head coach are pretty much silent. The difference here with G'town is that the program reached out repeatedly for increased support in recent years to push the hoops facility across the finish line. Regardless of the program's approach to communications during the Thompson eras, I just think that's a questionable move now to be silent. The grades are coming in on the new hoops facility and they are well short of what some alumni were preached. There shouldn't just be communication when times are good. This PR approach, or lack of, will likely not help with ticket sales. What are you talking about on the new hoops facility? What is "well short of what some alumni" were told? Are you saying that the facility itself is coming up short (if so, I'd like to know how, because that's news to me)? Or are you saying that the team's performance despite the addition of the facility is coming up short (if so, there's the obvious point that it hasn't yet been completed)? And let's be clear: you're the one with the post-season expectations. We have no idea what the AD or University's expectations are for the postseason. More generally: I don't disagree that a general "we'll be trying like heck to get better next year" email or something wouldn't hurt. But anything more than that? It's a bit juvenile to take some perverse pleasure in wanting a grown man to publicly admit to failure when it's painfully obvious he knows the season stunk. I'm not really sure what good that does ultimately. But OK. If you're hoping for a communication that clearly sets out what the ramifications are after this season or what the bright-line necessity is in terms of performance for next year, well, that's comically misguided and unrealistic.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 24, 2016 10:48:07 GMT -5
Lubick is an interesting example. He always seemed like a high effort guy to me. Not a slap the floor or flex his muscles type. But always giving 100% out there. And he did play good fundamental defense and offensive rebound. Obviously, he couldn't hit a wide-open 12-footer to save his life. But he fit the rest of your bill. That 12 footer is crucial. It doesn't matter how good a passer our four or five is -- if he can't hit at least an elbow jumper, he'll never get the chance to show off his passing and the lane will generally be clogged. That said, I do think we've done a pretty good job in the past few years of identifying when we have fours and fives that can't hit that shot and using them primarily as screeners or in the post. And that's what all teams do with those guys (just as all teams have their fours and fives handle the ball out top in many sets to facilitate movement, as much as some of our fans think otherwise). That's what we did with Josh the past two years. He didn't spend a ton of time at the elbow looking for cutters. When he got the ball out top it was either to facilitate movement or to engage in a dribble/hand-off, which is similar to a PNR. Marcus and Jesse are huge wildcards moving forward. We know they can hit that elbow shot (and much more). So, we know they'll demand defensive attention and open things up. But can they pass effectively (clearly the answer was no this year)? Can they be weapons in the post (right now they're not)? And, perhaps most important, can they play decent fundamental defense, such that they at a minimum aren't a "minus" on that side of the court? Marcus is closer than Jesse right now. Finally, the hope is that Agau is the sort of Frankenstein you're talking about. But who knows? Agree with your statement that there is still a role for bigs who cannot shoot from the outside to come up top and set a screen to facilitate ball movement. However, dribble/hand-offs and ball screens up top are of limited value without at least the threat of offense from the big on the outside. As we saw repeatedly this year with Hayes, it simply did not work very often as his man would drop off to guard the lane preventing a drive or cut into the lane and the rest of the defenders would strictly play the screen. Now when our outside shooters could utilize the screen and hit the shot off the dribble it worked somewhat, but with a team that generally was not good at 3 point shots, or at best was very streaky, this caused major breakdowns in the structure of the offense and the flow. It also took the one reliable rebounder 12-15 feet away from the basket and almost assured that we got only one shot. I believe that the point that this team simply has not had the bigs to fully gain the benefit of the offense we run is valid. Hopkins,Lubick, Hayes and Smith were all unable to pose any threat from 12-15 feet. I have hope for Govan as he gets more comfortable with the ball and learns to make quicker and more instinctive decisions. This may have been true this year with our particular personnel, but that's actually more a problem with the folks getting the screen or hand-off, not the screener. If you watch the games tonight, check out how many times a big comes up to set the high ball screen and is no threat at all from outside. Marshall Plumlee ain't hitting a fifteen foooter! But Duke will still run that action somewhat frequently to try to force a switch or a miscommunication. The post defender can't just lay back -- he has to at least show or hedge -- because otherwise it's an open three attempt. We just didn't have anyone other than LJ that could use that screen and get into the lane. That is, DSR couldn't really get around the hedging big to get into the lane. Grayson Allen can do it all the time. It's a huge problem having a big that can't shoot if you're running a pure Princeton and looking for cutters. And we certainly ran into that problem some with Lubick (or earlier with, say, Julian Vaughan). But we aren't really doing that as much now -- or at least haven't the past couple of years. To me, the excitement of having a Govan that, as you say, can make quicker and more instinctive decisions, is that we can do both and become really dangerous. He gets the ball on the top and LJ starts coming around. Jesse (or Marcus's) defender can't sag at all or it's an easy three. The play could be a dribble/hand-off requiring a switch that leads to a layup. Or to an open three if they don't switch it. But LJ could also stop and cut back door. The crazy optimistic dreams of a madman...... EDIT: I think III realized this far too late when, in the last couple of games, he actually had DSR play the five in our Princeton sets. It was a pretty interesting idea and I'd love to know what would have happened if we did that all year (or at least more often).
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 24, 2016 7:49:40 GMT -5
Regarding #1, I think there are some things a coach can do. He can recruit high energy guys. I think in short spurts, a coach can get something out of his team. At some point, though, my experience in life is that you can't force a massive and sustained change in effort in someone, and you definitely can't make a dude like DSR have energy like Ewing. That needs to come from the person. This is a lot of the reason I'm not really interested in trying to assign blame. Players aren't automatons that coaches need to flip the switch on, but coaches also choose who to recruit, and there are times when the staff and player doesn't connect. There's usually a little from column A and a little from column B and unless you are in the program, figuring out if its more on the staff or the player is silly. As for #2, I don't think you can call it 100% coaching. JTIII and staff have a long history of having fundamentally strong teams. Repeatedly, players head to the NBA and GMs gush over their fundamentals. While the team is not immune from sloppy play, like any, we routinely have excellent footwork, improving shots, etc., and until recently, strong defensive fundamentals. So yeah, some of it is coaching, but some of it is player effort, coachability and focus. You make a subtle point here I think is relevant and is what concerns me the most about our team. High energy players and fundamentals gushing seem to be reserved for our NBA players. If a kid is headed to the NBA, I think JTIII is a great coach. I'm concerned about the level of effort and execution we get from those middling guys. At some point Hopkins can't run the offense like Roy or Jeff and that's just how it is. But we seem to continue to hope and wish that of the guys we have, one will "pop". Four Lubick years later, that's not a great place to be. Meanwhile you see other teams that have 6'9 Frakensteins who play tough defense, offensive rebound, and can hit a 12-footer. They can't thread passes, hit threes, or switch on guards but are never asked to. The issue doesn't come down to whose "fault" it is, but the coach is the one who has to be honest with himself and set his respective players up to succeed. That's not about making low energy guys high energy all the time and limited guys 5-tool players. It's about realizing what they are and using them appropriately. Lubick is an interesting example. He always seemed like a high effort guy to me. Not a slap the floor or flex his muscles type. But always giving 100% out there. And he did play good fundamental defense and offensive rebound. Obviously, he couldn't hit a wide-open 12-footer to save his life. But he fit the rest of your bill. That 12 footer is crucial. It doesn't matter how good a passer our four or five is -- if he can't hit at least an elbow jumper, he'll never get the chance to show off his passing and the lane will generally be clogged. That said, I do think we've done a pretty good job in the past few years of identifying when we have fours and fives that can't hit that shot and using them primarily as screeners or in the post. And that's what all teams do with those guys (just as all teams have their fours and fives handle the ball out top in many sets to facilitate movement, as much as some of our fans think otherwise). That's what we did with Josh the past two years. He didn't spend a ton of time at the elbow looking for cutters. When he got the ball out top it was either to facilitate movement or to engage in a dribble/hand-off, which is similar to a PNR. Marcus and Jesse are huge wildcards moving forward. We know they can hit that elbow shot (and much more). So, we know they'll demand defensive attention and open things up. But can they pass effectively (clearly the answer was no this year)? Can they be weapons in the post (right now they're not)? And, perhaps most important, can they play decent fundamental defense, such that they at a minimum aren't a "minus" on that side of the court? Marcus is closer than Jesse right now. Finally, the hope is that Agau is the sort of Frankenstein you're talking about. But who knows?
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 23, 2016 9:19:07 GMT -5
I read it again. My point is that the reason your analogy doesn't make sense is the same reason why the argument as to our coach's salary doesn't. We can't buy IBM for $150. The cost of IBM is $300. Because we -- and only we -- established the market for IBM. Maybe we're overpaying; maybe we aren't. But that's the price. Now, we could buy Startup Comp Co. instead. Perhaps it would cost $50. And perhaps we'd get even greater returns than we would by paying for IBM for another couple years. But it wouldn't be IBM! And there's the significant risk (right?) that it would go bankrupt. Let me be clear since you seem to be having problems with reading: I did not write the IBM analogy; it was another poster. Got it. My apologies. I did miss that.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 23, 2016 9:05:32 GMT -5
That's a great analogy, PR, and shows (to me) the lunacy of these arguments. Imagine that each time you buy stock it's for a one-year term, and in exchange, you're sole owner of the company. Five or six years ago, we locked in our ability to own IBM for a longer term by agreeing to pay $300/share each year for a set term. Maybe it was a good deal at the time for IBM stock -- it guaranteed that we would be able to own it for longer than that one-year in the hope that we would get a consistent minimal return. Maybe it was a bad deal at the time. But what's important is that it's simply industry standard for companies to demand long-term deals in exchange for exclusivity. Fast-forward to today. We're obligated to pay for the stock. Contractually obligated. We could breach our contract. But then we'd STILL have to pay IBM a significant sum of money in exchange for no return from IBM. And, if we did that, it's not that we can buy IBM stock for a cheaper price. It's that we could buy a very uncertain start-up company's stock for a lesser (but still significant) amount. The price that IBM would get today on the open market is irrelevant. Because, by definition, we're NOT going to be able to get IBM at that new market price. Instead, all we care about is whatever we are getting the minimal level of return we wanted when we signed that deal. If we're not getting it, perhaps, we'd pay IBM less when our contract is up. That is, we'd pay whatever the market rate is for the historical returns. Or, we could try the start-up company. High risk/high reward. But it's irrelevant NOW how much we're paying. Read again, aleu. Not my analogy. I read it again. My point is that the reason your analogy doesn't make sense is the same reason why the argument as to our coach's salary doesn't. We can't buy IBM for $150. The cost of IBM is $300. Because we -- and only we -- established the market for IBM. Maybe we're overpaying; maybe we aren't. But that's the price. Now, we could buy Startup Comp Co. instead. Perhaps it would cost $50. And perhaps we'd get even greater returns than we would by paying for IBM for another couple years. But it wouldn't be IBM! And there's the significant risk (right?) that it would go bankrupt.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 23, 2016 8:52:09 GMT -5
I disagree. Would he be seeking the same compensation as he gets now or would he take a big pay cut? Do you think he would be offered $3M/yr somewhere else? It's been 10 years since he had a good NCAA Tournament. He hasn't won a regular or league tournament under the (easier) new BE. If you remove the Blue&Grey glasses, it does not look good for the resume. That's exactly the point. If no one else is willing to pay him $2.8mm a year, why are we? Or put in a less emotionally charged way: If the market price for IBM stock is $150/share, then why are we paying $300/share? That's a great analogy, PR, and shows (to me) the lunacy of these arguments. Imagine that each time you buy stock it's for a one-year term, and in exchange, you're sole owner of the company. Five or six years ago, we locked in our ability to own IBM for a longer term by agreeing to pay $300/share each year for a set term. Maybe it was a good deal at the time for IBM stock -- it guaranteed that we would be able to own it for longer than that one-year in the hope that we would get a consistent minimal return. Maybe it was a bad deal at the time. But what's important is that it's simply industry standard for companies to demand long-term deals in exchange for exclusivity. Fast-forward to today. We're obligated to pay for the stock. Contractually obligated. We could breach our contract. But then we'd STILL have to pay IBM a significant sum of money in exchange for no return from IBM. And, if we did that, it's not that we can buy IBM stock for a cheaper price. It's that we could buy a very uncertain start-up company's stock for a lesser (but still significant) amount. The price that IBM would get today on the open market is irrelevant. Because, by definition, we're NOT going to be able to get IBM at that new market price. Instead, all we care about is whatever we are getting the minimal level of return we wanted when we signed that deal. If we're not getting it, perhaps, we'd pay IBM less when our contract is up. That is, we'd pay whatever the market rate is for the historical returns. Or, we could try the start-up company. High risk/high reward. But it's irrelevant NOW how much we're paying.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 21, 2016 18:49:09 GMT -5
Good stuff, SF. I'm more concerned about the D than I am about the O. We improved on D, but not nearly to the point where we were passable.
On offense: Don't you think some individual improvement in, say, 3FG% would make a huge difference in and of itself, and isn't it not unreasonable to think that, say, Ike improves greatly in that area or that Jesse becomes an higher usage guy? I think that's the easiest way this team gets better. Not necessarily Ike, but offensive improvement in straight out shooting.
On the issue of trust in the system, I worry that passing ability and instinct (like effort) isn't an easily taught skill.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 21, 2016 18:11:08 GMT -5
We are OK. For now. The problem is, and it has little to do with performance, what happens when that Fox deal is up? This is an interesting question to think about, though it's a bit premature given that I believe the Fox Sports 1 deal was 10 years, meaning it will end in 2023. The biggest unknown factor is what the sports landscape and TV will look like in 2023, especially the Big East's standing and Fox Sports 1's standing. Thus far, Fox Sports 1 has done a very good job of highlighting the Big East and treating it like the premier sport on the network. Viewership has continually gone up year-over-year. I think moving the Big East Tournament final to the Fox network was a great idea this year, because it surely got a lot more exposure for the network and the conference. Assuming the Big East generates good revenue for Fox Sports 1 (and I have no idea if it does), I think there is a good chance that Fox will probably stick with the Big East. Right now, sports rights are still much coveted, and so many sports rights are tied up for so long, that it's unlikely Fox would "replace" the Big East with something else, especially in the winter months. Of course, the other huge unknown factor is how technology has affected viewership and television. Streaming and online content is common now, whereas 10 years ago technology greatly limited the scope of that type of viewing. The one good overall factor seems to be that there is still a desire for sports and sports are the one area where live viewership has tended to remain strong. As long as that continues, I think that the Big East will be fine. You're right that we don't know what technology will look like or the landscape in general. But we do know that, right now, two of the major content distributors and rights payers (Fox and ESPN) are laying people off like crazy. That's a sure sign that their revenue streams are, generally, not what they had hoped and, one would think, would lead to reduced rights fees when those fees come up. We also know that our deal is significantly more lucrative than that paid to any other conference outside of the "big 5." In ten years' time will be worth a 500% premium over the American (and it's really more than that because their rights deal includes football)? This is way off topic, but I'm of the belief that the entire model is going to crater in the mid-term. That viewership will become more a la carte and conferences like the Big 10 that rely on carriage fees for their network to drive much of their revenue will get creamed because, of course, relatively few people actually care to get the channel in the markets that carry it. Maybe that cratering actually kills the bigger conferences more than it does us, but we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 21, 2016 7:09:01 GMT -5
The one thing I would point out is that only UNC, Duke and maybe Syracuse (but maybe not) have players who are across the board were more highly rated coming out of high school than the players you see on the top six or so BE teams. Miami, Notre Dame and even Virginia have dudes who weren't any better overall that the dudes on the BE teams. So it comes down more to luck, coaching, experience, right? It is about what coaches put their teams in the best position to win, what draw you get and how mentally ready are the players to step up to the challenge. BE is becoming a lot closer to A-10 than ACC. I think you are failing to see who left the conference and who came in. BE name is there but the powers are not. It's us and Nova in terms of brand and any type of recent success. I would do all I could to try and get UCONN back and put them in MAAC or something else for football. Half the schools we have are former mid majors or the lowest performing BE teams. Unfortunately, we are now under performing some of them. I'm not writing this to hate on the school or conference just my worry as I look at what is going happening. I think it's true that we may be closer than we think to the A-10 than to the top and middle of the ACC. Not closer (not if you really look at it objectively). But closer than we would like to admit. But, again, that's not true relative to the other power conferences. Or, to put it differently, the pac-12 and sec are closer to the a-10 than to the ACC....or closer than they think. Only Final Fours change the perception of a school. And maybe even only titles. Getting to the sweet 16 is important to us and to serious fans, but not the public at large.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 21, 2016 6:59:21 GMT -5
Let's be honest here: The ACC is a better league at the top than is the Big East. It has more traditionally excellent teams. Duke and UNC obviously. And then they took two of the teams that contributed to the BE's greatness (Ville and Cuse) and added them. UVa obviously is on an extended great run also. They've been at least as good as has our best team over the past three years. We may have two very high seeded teams. And another school (us) that is a school that has been in that realm relatively recently. But they have a LOT more.
And Miami and ND are very good this year, which means the ACC is better in the middle this year also. Those teams are better than Provy, SH, and Butler. Heck, how many times have P, SH, or B earned a top four seed in the last decade?
There are years when we may be as good on a percentage basis in terms of bids and maybe years we can match them or get close in terms of high seeds. But they have the sheer numbers to make it difficult. No one cares that we got the same percentage of our league into the second round as they did, right? No one even knows that! And once we are there, we are only favored in two games.
But here's the thing: All that means is that the ACC is right now better. We are just as good as every other league. And the results this year do nothing to change that; they reinforce it.
I'd also add that two of the ACC's premiere programs are likely about to suffer significant sanctions and may lose their coaches to boot (Ville and UNC). Another two will soon lose their coaches (Duke and Cuse). So will Miami. That matters. And as we know, it's awfully hard to make the right choice when hiring. It's highly unlikely more than half of them do. I can't discount the possibility that our guys leave, but all of our current NCAA coaches are young enough to lead their programs for a long time.
Things haven't gone as well as they could have. And it feels even worse due to what has happened to us. But they could have gone far worse. There was no predicting X would be this good. Or that SH would appear to be on the right track. Or that Provy would sustain itself as a good team.
We are OK. For now. The problem is, and it has little to do with performance, what happens when that Fox deal is up?
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 19, 2016 9:16:50 GMT -5
2 to 3 more years of that type of result and Shaka Smart will be looking for a new job after Texas. Shaka did that at VCU... Virginia Commonwealth University!! That's what made it impressive. He did not have the big college name to recruit while looking for players that fit his system. At Texas, like Georgetown, he should have more opportunities to recruit players who fit his system AND who are in general more athletic and better overall. Give him 1/2 years of his recruiting classes and I am confident Texas will be a top 10 team and do well in the tournament. In my eyes Shaka is clearly a better coach than JTIII. Basically, you're celebrating (rightly) the fact that he wildly exceeded any fair expectations in the past three regular seasons at VCU, and you're not allowing the fact that he lost single games to less-regarded teams in a single elimination tournament at the end of those seasons to overwhelm what he did in getting there. Hmmm. I think he's a great coach, too, as I said. And it's incredibly impressive to have four straight NCAA bids (two with high seeds) at VCU. And I do think it's quite likely he'll succeed at Texas, if given a fair opportunity. (I forgot to note above that nearly all of his NCAA losses have been very, very close defeats. Make of that what you will -- you could draw any number of conclusions (luck, a sign that he's a bad coach in crunch time, a sign that his losses aren't as "bad" as blow-out losses).
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 19, 2016 8:38:29 GMT -5
Northern Iowa beat Texas with a last minute half court shot. So, the beloved Shaka Smart goes down in the first round...losing to a double digit seed. Another HOT SEAT. Must be awful coaching. Smart is a terrific coach. Everyone agrees, right? I know I do. And I know this is all provided in a tongue-in-cheek way. But I do think it's worth laying the facts out there: Year 1: Cinderella trip to Final Four Year 2: Earn 12 seed; upset victory in first round; loss in second. Year 3: Earn 5 seed; lose to 12 seed in first round. Year 4: Earn 7 seed; lose to 10 seed in first round. Year 5: Earn 6 seed; lose to 11 seed in first round. Three straight years with a loss to a double-digit seed in the first round. I'm not trying to compare him directly to JTIII; there are obviously differences (smaller sample size; Shaka's results are at two different schools and this is his first year at his new one; and the upsets aren't as bad as ours). But it's not a terribly small sample size. And the fact remains that he has been upset three consecutive years in the first round. And even in "year two," I think many folks here would deem that year an overall failure given the seed received. Is there a trend? If so, it's bad! Maybe he can't win with the better talent his Cinderella run earned him? As anyone who knows my posting knows, I don't agree with either of those conclusions. I think he's great. But if you're going to use NCAAT results as the basis for measurement, there are lots of ways to interpret results.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 18, 2016 14:45:09 GMT -5
Chris Wright was recruited 10 years ago, using him as the exemplar of this program's ability to consistently recruit high quality PGs is wearing very thin. That's not the discussion. The discussion is about trying to get them.
|
|