|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 11, 2024 12:29:57 GMT -5
This is interesting as Mack and Peavy are considered two of Georgetown's high priority transfer portal targets. I am not so much worried about Texas with Mack. I feel like if Mack picks Texas he's looking for something very different than what Georgetown has to offer, and we take the loss. I am more concerned about UVA, though. Fingers crossed for some good commitments soon.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 10, 2024 21:38:21 GMT -5
Even though I shouldn't, I will throw in my two cents: 1. I like to see news posted about the Hoyas. hoyaboya does this a lot with recruits, and it's interesting to see it. Basically, he is taking the effort to aggregate news about players who are interested in Georgetown, and does often comment on them. Even though we disagree a lot on things, I can appreciate that effort. 2. That said, I think there is a difference between that, and the Casual Hoya tweet, which is really just a flashy headline meant to get clicks, and perhaps serve as a stand in to a poster saying that point him or herself. If you actually look at the post, there's no bite to the title, and the post consists mostly of linking to other people's material. My own thought would be that newsy type posts (from at least semi-reputable people) from social media can be useful without commentary. But opinion posts from social media or that are just click bait headlines like Casual's really have limited value to all of the rest of us. Honestly, was this worth posting? This board is reaching the level of farce. Your schtick is old at this point. Basically everything you post criticizes other posters, be it me, your new target TC, or others. At least I post substantive things about basketball throughout the season, something you rarely do. If there is a farce on this Board, it's not me. And for what it's worth, there was a discussion over posting social media stuff here. I happen to agree with the Admin that it's gotten a bit much at times. That's why I commented on what I think makes sense, and what doesn't. If you don't like what I post, ignore it. Then you don't have to read my posts, and you won't have to waste time with your criticisms. Win, win for all involved.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 10, 2024 21:22:14 GMT -5
Even though I shouldn't, I will throw in my two cents: 1. I like to see news posted about the Hoyas. hoyaboya does this a lot with recruits, and it's interesting to see it. Basically, he is taking the effort to aggregate news about players who are interested in Georgetown, and does often comment on them. Even though we disagree a lot on things, I can appreciate that effort. 2. That said, I think there is a difference between that, and the Casual Hoya tweet, which is really just a flashy headline meant to get clicks, and perhaps serve as a stand in to a poster saying that point him or herself. If you actually look at the post, there's no bite to the title, and the post consists mostly of linking to other people's material. My own thought would be that newsy type posts (from at least semi-reputable people) from social media can be useful without commentary. But opinion posts from social media or that are just click bait headlines like Casual's really have limited value to all of the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 9, 2024 17:50:27 GMT -5
But UCONN only made 6 threes. So it's not like Purdue was trading 2s for 3s. That's why people need to watch the games and not just look at statistics. UCONN had a phenomenal gameplan. They decided to not let anybody but Edey beat them, knowing they could use Clingan and Johnson to wear down Edey over 40 minutes and that by not allowing 3s, it would be next to impossible for Edey to win the game by himself. And UCONN was correct. I was surprised not to see Painter adjust more, and he's an excellent coach. He just kept dumping it down to Edey, seemed like he fell in love with the idea of Clingan/Johnson getting into foul trouble. But the problem for Painter was, by the time those two UCONN centers got into foul trouble, the game was already over. But Purdue only made 1 three. Maybe "people" should look at the math before they start criticizing. Purdue was 1-7 from three point range. They scored 3 points from three point range. Connecticut went 6-22. They scored 18 points from three point range. 18 minus 3 is 15. In this instance, that happens to be Connecticut's winning margin. You think it mattered, perhaps? I realize that part of the 1-7 was Connecticut's strategy and great defense, of course. Purdue had to counteract that strategy, but they did not. Perhaps they couldn't because Connecticut is too good. But, instead, Purdue chose to shoot mostly twos, even though they are one of the best three point shooting teams in the country. Connecticut shutting that down essentially turned them into a two-point only team. It's hard to win that way--which was my point.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 9, 2024 17:10:01 GMT -5
The Cooley-first fans are really going to have to work on their Brumbaugh narrative, facts keep getting in the way... I dont follow...? He hired an NIL rep? What does that have to do with a narrative? I am similarly confused. I have no idea what that has to do with anything. It seems pretty clear to me that Brumbaugh left because of one or multiple of these items: (1) clashes or a bad fit with the coaching staff, (2) playing time/being recruited over, or (3) Georgetown not willing to give him as much NIL as he wanted. I don't think it is more complicated than this, and until Brumbaugh opens his mouth and talks about it, we all have no clue why he left. The funny thing is that when Brumbaugh left, the Cooley-always-is-horrible-no-matter-what-he-does fans (like boya) were making a big deal out of Brumbaugh leaving, as if it was some kind of huge condemnation on Cooley. I am not saying more won't happen, because depending on what happens in the portal, it might--but other than Brumbaugh and Bristol everybody has stayed put so far. That doesn't fit the negative narrative, so all efforts have to be made to skew Brumbaugh's departure as badly as possible until new fodder comes along. I was a big supporter of Cooley after he was hired. This year hugely disappointed me and raised a lot of red flags for me. I am concenred, especially on defense. I still support Cooley, but with more skepticism than I had going into last year. But I still think he's a better coach than what he showed last year, and right now he's our only hope for a good program, so I still strongly support him and the team to make things right.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 9, 2024 13:49:17 GMT -5
This was the obvious play and very well executed. Purdue had no answer. This really shows that while big men can still be valuable in the college game, there are also inherent limitations. A team cannot win by trading twos for threes. That said, Purdue was obviously a great basketball team, and Edey was a huge part of their success. Really good big men can still be really valuable in the college game, though. I do wonder what Edey's efficiency numbers look like on types of shots though. For example, what is his efficiency on post ups? I imagine not great, though probably very good simply because he's a great player and is also bigger than most of his opponents. I believe there is a stat service out there that gives those types of stats, but I do not have access to it.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 9, 2024 11:27:25 GMT -5
I hate UConn, but love this for the conference, only issue is I am worried that sooner rather then later UConn will Get poached, and the Power 4 football conferences will decide the Big East will not be included in future big time sports. If any of you watched ESpn the past 24 hours Seth Greenberg and others keep alluding to it. There have been many rounds of realignment and nobody has wanted UConn. The only real danger would be the ACC--the Big 10, Big 12, and SEC would never take them. But, if the ACC loses Clemson, Florida State, and others potentially, one could envision a scenario where the ACC gets desperate enough to add them despite choices not to do so in the past.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 9, 2024 7:27:42 GMT -5
Great outcome for the Big East of course. While I don’t love UConn, the Big East needs to stay relevant in this era when football continues to mess up and threaten to mess with things relating to other college sports. And while the Big East got stiffed in bids, this is really the best way to show people just how good the conference is.
But now the season is over. Two things I want to see emerge over the next year are a much better Georgetown team, and a good media deal that sets the stage for the future of the conference.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 8, 2024 20:10:08 GMT -5
The one you posted above, for one. If the standard is Twitter posts, there have been plenty linking Mack to Georgetown, yes. Including one that said he visited. But, since I don't know the source, I'm not going to repost them here. Of course, everyone knows that if something isn't posted on Twitter, it didn't happen. I really don't get the allure of Syracuse if Mack has any concern about academics. Not only that, while I realize Georgetown hasn't been a good program in a while, it's not like Syracuse has been killing it. So if you (and people like RBHoya) are OK with seeing Tweets from random sources linking people to Georgetown, why wouldn't you be OK with similar Tweets linking those prospects to places besides Georgetown? Do you just want to put blinders on and pretend competition doesn't exist? You're taking a lot of logical leaps there. The tweet about Mack said someone from Syracuse was trying to recruit him. My comment was solely that that isn't new information. I didn't say I didn't believe it. I do believe it. You then responded asking about tweets going the other way - Georgetown recruiting Mack. You yourself posted a recruit from the SAME source, which stated that Georgetown was leading for him but it was up in the air. I never said I was or was not "OK" with similar tweets. I was just answering your question. That's all. There are no blinders on. And you know that.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 8, 2024 18:21:56 GMT -5
So this tweet tells us someone associated with Syracuse is trying to get Mack to go to Syracuse. Is this really information we did not know already? Are there similar tweets telling us someone associated with Georgetown is trying to get Mack to Georgetown? The one you posted above, for one. If the standard is Twitter posts, there have been plenty linking Mack to Georgetown, yes. Including one that said he visited. But, since I don't know the source, I'm not going to repost them here. Of course, everyone knows that if something isn't posted on Twitter, it didn't happen. I really don't get the allure of Syracuse if Mack has any concern about academics. Not only that, while I realize Georgetown hasn't been a good program in a while, it's not like Syracuse has been killing it.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 8, 2024 14:54:02 GMT -5
This post is from a nobody with no firsthand knowledge or inside info, and you are just trying to stir up negativity as always. Mack's recruitment has been quiet. Some of the "insider" types thought we were the team to beat. Then there were rumors that Vandy (new coach from JMU has a TTO assistant) was going to throw a big NIL offer at him, and then in the last day or two Malik followed a couple people associated with Syracuse's NIL collective. All of it has really been speculation though. Safe to say all 3 teams are pursuing, but nobody knows who is "leading", if anyone is at this point, because Mack and family have kept everything quiet. Let it unfold a little.
Funny how you didn't come down on this source when I posted a pro-Georgetown tweet previously from him, RB. So this tweet tells us someone associated with Syracuse is trying to get Mack to go to Syracuse. Is this really information we did not know already?
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 5, 2024 18:03:19 GMT -5
I posted earlier Mack and hugged and we are tourney team I’ve decided I’m not going to get too hyped up no matter who we pull in. I and others here were saying we had tournament caliber talent a couple years back when we got Murray, Spears, and Q back. Of course we were way off on that. I’m at the point where I need to see results on the court before I believe we’re going to sniff the tournament. This is just normal unrealistic fan optimism. I don't think any objective observer (i.e., not a Georgetown fan) seeing us coming off the 0-20 season who had a realistic assessment of Patrick Ewing's coaching ability thought we would be anything close to a tournament team. Granted, I think many of us thought we'd improve more off 0-20 than we did, but a lot of us (including me) thought we'd be better than 2-18 this past season, too. The beauty of college sports is that with improvement/luck, etc. there is always a chance you can improve. And fans will key in on that, too. I am sure I've done it over the years as well. Heck, I remember after the BET win, while I was skeptical of Ewing, I was hopeful we could threaten to make the tournament, and we followed that up with 0-20. At this juncture, without a roster in place, I think a tournament bid is extremely unlikely. Of course, if we get some good transfers, I am sure I will convince myself otherwise before next November.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 5, 2024 10:12:07 GMT -5
There had been early chatter about Preston Murphy, an Alabama assistant. The post Final Four timing makes me wonder if that could be in play? Murphy recently got an extension, but that doesn't necessarily mean much.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 4, 2024 16:01:47 GMT -5
I mostly agree with you, but my point is a little different. You are (in my mind) correctly saying that the changing landscape of college basketball has required coaches to construct their rosters differently. I think this is no doubt true, and will continue as long as free transfers are permitted, combined with NIL. It is simply unrealistic to build a roster expecting guys to stay 3-4 years anymore (at least some of them--the goal is to hold on to some). This is really a question of whether people will adapt. Some, like Calipari, who is still trying to win with 5 star 19 year olds, is struggling to have the type of success Kentucky almuni/fans expect. Others have adjusted to the changes quite well. Perhaps I am wrong, but I also think the impact of the extra COVID year is really hard to understate. The last few years, college basketball has been full of older skilled guys. In years past, these 5th year players would have been off in Europe, New Zealand, Australia, etc. trying to make a buck playing basketball. Instead, many of these folks have stuck around the last several years, to college basketball's benefit. That will be over soon, and I think that'll reduce the age component a bit at least. I also think the transfer portal + free transfers + NIL is driving the aging rosters too. For example, in the past, someone who was disaffected might have stayed on a team to avoid sitting. Now, you don't need to sit, and you can get paid to transfer! So why not do it? I think the end result is that the Power 6 conferences (soon to be 5) will get older as they take on transfers from other schools, and those schools (including, for example, the Ivies) will get younger and less competitive. (Not to be a nit, but I would not use NC State as an example of anything, other than a team that was not even an NCAA roster that got hot at the right time and has really turned on the afterburners.) For what it's worth, KenPom has a stat called "D-1 Experience" to try to capture this. It is weighed by seniority in terms of college experience (freshman, sophomore, etc.) and then weighed for minutes played. 19 of the top 50 teams ranked for D-1 Experience made the NCAA tournament. On the flop side, of the 50 least experienced rosters, the only tournament team was Fairleigh Dickinson, a 16 seed. Though there are some programs just above the bottom 50 that had success, like Marquette and Duke.Any system that considers a team with Kolek, Jones and Ighodaro "inexperienced" is a flawed system. Otherwise most of your points are solid, 2003. I apologize, I inadvertently was looking at the 2022-2023 stat for experience, not this year. Under this year's stats, Marquette is ranked 137, which is above average experience. Since my stats above were for 2023, not 2024, here they are for this year: Top 50 Experience: 19 of the 50 most experienced teams made the NCAA tournament. 2 of the 50 least experienced teams made the NCAA tournament (Saint Peter's and Wagner).
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 4, 2024 15:50:51 GMT -5
Simple answer - Epps! He's a net negative despite his counting numbers, due to his ball dominance, poor shooting and poor defense. Might be more effective with fewer minutes and responsibilities coming off the bench. I would not necessarily disagree with you depending on how our roster takes shape, I just don't realistically see that happening. I really do think if Epps could be taught to take his time, have fewer but better possessions, and play mostly off ball he'd potentially be a more valuable player. But, that assumes that Epps would change how he plays. It's hard to say if that's realistic. I know you'd probably say it's not, but I think it's possible we would be surprised.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 4, 2024 11:43:58 GMT -5
I have seen this mentioned a lot. And I think there's some truth to it. The problem is that NIL is in such an early stage, we really don't know the answer yet. And we will never know on guys like Jay Wright and Coach K because they chose to retire rather than deal with it. So, I think the jury is still out on this one. That said, most of the guys who are still coaching and who were good coaches pre-NIL have still be good coaches with NIL in place. Again, because we are in the early stages, it's hard to say if that will last. It would not shock me at all if there are more retirements or if certain coaches work their way out of the game who are disgusted with NIL. I just think the things are often treated as mutually exclusive, when it is not necessarily going to be the case. In fact, I think when we have a better set of data in 10 years or so, it will show that most of the coaches who succeeded before NIL are still succeeding (granted, perhaps not to the same degree), and the bad coaches will likely still be bad. I still think the best forecast of anybody's success is their past results in aggregrate. Yeah, it's nice to speak in generalities and everything, but let's look at NC State and Alabama. They are in the Final Four, with NC State's band of old men mercenary transfers having just beaten Duke's highly ranked group of McD's AA freshmen and sophomores in the Elite Eight. Alabama's backcourt is comprised of old men transfers and Nate Oats, who was a high school coach a decade ago, is in the Final Four. Purdue is a nice counter with Painter having primarily built his roster the old-fashioned way, but the reality is that today you can win with Kevin Keatts and Nate Oats and old men transfers potentially easier than you can with John Calipari and Jon Scheyer types coaching McD's AAs. I mostly agree with you, but my point is a little different. You are (in my mind) correctly saying that the changing landscape of college basketball has required coaches to construct their rosters differently. I think this is no doubt true, and will continue as long as free transfers are permitted, combined with NIL. It is simply unrealistic to build a roster expecting guys to stay 3-4 years anymore (at least some of them--the goal is to hold on to some). This is really a question of whether people will adapt. Some, like Calipari, who is still trying to win with 5 star 19 year olds, is struggling to have the type of success Kentucky almuni/fans expect. Others have adjusted to the changes quite well. Perhaps I am wrong, but I also think the impact of the extra COVID year is really hard to understate. The last few years, college basketball has been full of older skilled guys. In years past, these 5th year players would have been off in Europe, New Zealand, Australia, etc. trying to make a buck playing basketball. Instead, many of these folks have stuck around the last several years, to college basketball's benefit. That will be over soon, and I think that'll reduce the age component a bit at least. I also think the transfer portal + free transfers + NIL is driving the aging rosters too. For example, in the past, someone who was disaffected might have stayed on a team to avoid sitting. Now, you don't need to sit, and you can get paid to transfer! So why not do it? I think the end result is that the Power 6 conferences (soon to be 5) will get older as they take on transfers from other schools, and those schools (including, for example, the Ivies) will get younger and less competitive. (Not to be a nit, but I would not use NC State as an example of anything, other than a team that was not even an NCAA roster that got hot at the right time and has really turned on the afterburners.) For what it's worth, KenPom has a stat called "D-1 Experience" to try to capture this. It is weighed by seniority in terms of college experience (freshman, sophomore, etc.) and then weighed for minutes played. 19 of the top 50 teams ranked for D-1 Experience made the NCAA tournament. On the flop side, of the 50 least experienced rosters, the only tournament team was Fairleigh Dickinson, a 16 seed. Though there are some programs just above the bottom 50 that had success, like Marquette and Duke.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 4, 2024 10:58:13 GMT -5
Wright left coaching as the portal era gained steam and whatever success Cooley had at Providence (1 Sweet Sixteen in 12 years of coaching) came before NIL was a thing. Don't think you can use those predicates to assume the model that worked in a previous era will work now. I have seen this mentioned a lot. And I think there's some truth to it. The problem is that NIL is in such an early stage, we really don't know the answer yet. And we will never know on guys like Jay Wright and Coach K because they chose to retire rather than deal with it. So, I think the jury is still out on this one. That said, most of the guys who are still coaching and who were good coaches pre-NIL have still be good coaches with NIL in place. Again, because we are in the early stages, it's hard to say if that will last. It would not shock me at all if there are more retirements or if certain coaches work their way out of the game who are disgusted with NIL. I just think the things are often treated as mutually exclusive, when it is not necessarily going to be the case. In fact, I think when we have a better set of data in 10 years or so, it will show that most of the coaches who succeeded before NIL are still succeeding (granted, perhaps not to the same degree), and the bad coaches will likely still be bad. I still think the best forecast of anybody's success is their past results in aggregrate.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 4, 2024 9:50:07 GMT -5
That means we have 5 scholarships to utilize, should we wish to do so. Let's say we end up using 4 of the 5 available scholarships. Assuming our NIL budget is $4M as has been stated publicly by sources like Thompson's Towel, that's $1M/player for 4 players. I agree with you we should fill 4 of the 5 roster spots. But, don't we need to spend NIL money on existing players? So for example, if our NIL budget is $4 million and someone like Massoud got $300K last year, wouldn't we expect people like Fielder, Styles, and especially someone like Sorber to get some NIL money too? It just seems like we'd have a lot less than $1 million per player (if we were recruiting 4 players). I assume there is no prohibition on incoming freshman getting NIL.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 4, 2024 9:48:23 GMT -5
I have a buddy who is a huge Duke fan. This transfer out is not unexpected--he was telling me this would happen months ago. That said, he is extremely high on Reeves. Even though he hasn't played that much, according to him, Reeves is athletic and has real size at over 7 feet. Obviously, I know nothing about him really or where he might want to go, but I think he's worth a look. Obviously, you'd prefer to get a higher impact guy, but keep in mind that Cooley got guys like Hopkins and Carter who became impact guys.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 4, 2024 9:42:01 GMT -5
Owing to the growing number of fake social media posts being tossed about lately, know that these are subject to be edited or removed, even if it a Twitter or Instagram from another site was reposted innocently. Many fans see something here and assume it's credible and when it is determined it is not, we will act accordingly. Thanks in advance for your patience. Policing misinformation on social media is more difficult than ever, please know that I, and I am sure most of us, appreciate the efforts to keep those things out and make this a place for good information and discussion. I truly appreciate that the moderators keep a fairly tight ship when it comes to hundreds of threads, etc. Whenever I go to most other university boards like this one, the difference is immediately apparent. We probably don't say it enough so, thanks!
|
|