|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Aug 22, 2017 22:43:15 GMT -5
"Fans" are now ripping the schedule. Remember when we got blown out by wisconsin and oklahoma st last yr on national tv(espn)..and we were supposed to good then. Expectations are "low" this yr and now "fans" are complaining because our schedule may not be tough. Smh. Give Coach Ewing the chance to fulfill his vision and support the team. Quit throwing shade. I am all for giving Ewing a chance. I've said that many times. But, I also think it's fair to criticize the schedule, while still giving him a chance. Scheduling is a very discrete part of college basketball, and it's really not all that complex. You either make a tough schedule, an easy one, or something in between. Ewing is clearly going in the "easy" direction. There are arguments both for and against that strategy, as has been debated extensively. My biggest problem with it is what good is playing a slew of RPI 300+ teams, going something like 10-1 in the OOC and then getting crushed in the Big East? Yes, I know, I know - it's about building confidence, instilling a system, etc. I don't agree with that, but I understand it. And Ewing is the coach and went in that direction, so let's see what happens. I do hope fans avoid irrational exuberance if we beat up on awful teams and go into the Big East with a good record without being tested at all, except perhaps against Syracuse.
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Aug 23, 2017 0:26:55 GMT -5
"Fans" are now ripping the schedule. Remember when we got blown out by wisconsin and oklahoma st last yr on national tv(espn)..and we were supposed to good then. Expectations are "low" this yr and now "fans" are complaining because our schedule may not be tough. Smh. Give Coach Ewing the chance to fulfill his vision and support the team. Quit throwing shade. I am all for giving Ewing a chance. I've said that many times. But, I also think it's fair to criticize the schedule, while still giving him a chance. Scheduling is a very discrete part of college basketball, and it's really not all that complex. You either make a tough schedule, an easy one, or something in between. Ewing is clearly going in the "easy" direction. There are arguments both for and against that strategy, as has been debated extensively. My biggest problem with it is what good is playing a slew of RPI 300+ teams, going something like 10-1 in the OOC and then getting crushed in the Big East? Yes, I know, I know - it's about building confidence, instilling a system, etc. I don't agree with that, but I understand it. And Ewing is the coach and went in that direction, so let's see what happens. I do hope fans avoid irrational exuberance if we beat up on awful teams and go into the Big East with a good record without being tested at all, except perhaps against Syracuse. Scheduling is year to year. I understand people's frustrations with an easy schedule, but for this season when the Hoyas are not expected to compete for an NCAA bid, I don't have a problem with an easy schedule. If this becomes a trend and Ewing is still putting together easy schedules when the team is competitive, then I might feel differently. But at this point the team needs wins to help turn around the perception of the program, not to mention to give Ewing some time to get the team going.
|
|
blueandgray
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,767
|
Post by blueandgray on Aug 23, 2017 0:31:47 GMT -5
Given where we have been the last few years and what we have gone through, I much rather be 10-1 or 11-0 going into conference play than 6-5. Regardless of what our SOS may be, this program needs to build its confidence, even if it's a false confidence.
|
|
iowa80
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,402
|
Post by iowa80 on Aug 23, 2017 6:24:48 GMT -5
Given where we have been the last few years and what we have gone through, I much rather be 10-1 or 11-0 going into conference play than 6-5. Regardless of what our SOS may be, this program needs to build its confidence, even if it's a false confidence. My concern would be that any confidence will evaporate quickly if we are hammered in conference play after not being tested against the UMBC's of the world. We don't need to play nationally ranked teams, but I'd like to see us scheduling teams in the 40-80 range, or even s omewhat worse if necessary. I thought we played one of our better games against LaSalle last year, and that level of competition is fine. While it's not a top consideration, it's also somewhat unfair to our league brethren to have a weak strength of schedule.
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,642
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Aug 23, 2017 6:59:44 GMT -5
I think you need to heavily pad the early schedule this season so that the players can get acclimated to a new system and the bench can rotate in. Can't work on stuff when you are getting trounced by MSU.
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Aug 23, 2017 7:24:25 GMT -5
Given where we have been the last few years and what we have gone through, I much rather be 10-1 or 11-0 going into conference play than 6-5. Regardless of what our SOS may be, this program needs to build its confidence, even if it's a false confidence. My concern would be that any confidence will evaporate quickly if we are hammered in conference play after not being tested against the UMBC's of the world. We don't need to play nationally ranked teams, but I'd like to see us scheduling teams in the 40-80 range, or even s omewhat worse if necessary. I thought we played one of our better games against LaSalle last year, and that level of competition is fine. While it's not a top consideration, it's also somewhat unfair to our league brethren to have a weak strength of schedule. Keep in mind that last season Georgetown ended up as RPI 115 even with a decent OOC schedule. Below is last year's schedule ordered by RPI: Oregon 7 Wisconsin 30 Maryland 38 Oklahoma State 41 Syracuse 86 UNC Greensboro 98 Arkansas State 113 Connecticut 121 La Salle 143 Elon 163 South Carolina Upstate 232 Coppin State 336 Howard 339 Teams that are in the 40-80 range are actually pretty solid teams, and largely were absent from the OOC schedule last year. As an example, Seton Hall 46, Providence 61, and Marquette 67 were the Big East schools in that RPI range last season. And your example of La Salle was actually in the mid 100's. The top 4 RPI games last year were part of tournaments that are no longer on the schedule this season. So outside of Syracuse we will likely see a schedule this season that will hopefully be mostly in the 100-200 range with a few games in 200-350 range.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,818
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Aug 23, 2017 8:56:12 GMT -5
I think you need to heavily pad the early schedule this season so that the players can get acclimated to a new system and the bench can rotate in. Can't work on stuff when you are getting trounced by MSU. This is a false narrative. Rewind to 2004-05 and the RPI of this schedule: 23. Illinois 90. Clemson 100. Temple 118. Davidson 157. Oral Roberts 189. Penn St. 282. San Jose St. 300. Long Beach St. 305. The Citadel 310. Norfolk St. 321. Howard Four 300+ schools wasn't good, but there was a range of teams that allowed JT3's first team to grow up and one year later they were playing Florida in the regionals. We aren't seeing a Temple or a Davidson on this schedule and if we get it, great, but expectations are guarded. Will Ewing let this team grow up, or merely pad the schedule for cheap wins?
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Aug 23, 2017 8:58:31 GMT -5
No coach in the country has the NBA pedigree as a former player that these recruits dream about more than Coach Ewing. Today's high school juniors were two and three years old when Patrick Ewing retired from the NBA. They can certainly respect a Patrick Ewing or a Chris Mullin, but they didn't grow up with him. They dream about being the next Lebron or Kobe or Kevin Durant. That may not be fair, but it's the march of time. They wouldn't have to have grown up watching Ewing. Ewing has walked down the path most of them are trying to reach. Top flight recruit, college, playing in the NBA at the highest level, all-star games, two Olympic gold medals, Hall of fame,etc. Plus, he has coached in the NBA for 15 years. With that type of experience, it gives him a lot of credibility with kids on what it takes to make it in the NBA, from a playing and coaching perspective. Ewing can sell all of this and kids have access to google, youtube, etc. to verify what he is saying.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Aug 23, 2017 9:01:09 GMT -5
I think you need to heavily pad the early schedule this season so that the players can get acclimated to a new system and the bench can rotate in. Can't work on stuff when you are getting trounced by MSU. Was the official schedule released?
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Aug 23, 2017 9:27:49 GMT -5
I think you need to heavily pad the early schedule this season so that the players can get acclimated to a new system and the bench can rotate in. Can't work on stuff when you are getting trounced by MSU. This is a false narrative. Rewind to 2004-05 and the RPI of this schedule: 23. Illinois 90. Clemson 100. Temple 118. Davidson 157. Oral Roberts 189. Penn St. 282. San Jose St. 300. Long Beach St. 305. The Citadel 310. Norfolk St. 321. Howard Four 300+ schools wasn't good, but there was a range of teams that allowed JT3's first team to grow up and one year later they were playing Florida in the regionals. We aren't seeing a Temple or a Davidson on this schedule and if we get it, great, but expectations are guarded. Will Ewing let this team grow up, or merely pad the schedule for cheap wins? I agree with you DFW HOYA that a schedule similar to 04-05 would be ideal. I think people are getting hung up on semantics. I'm not sure that anyone wants 6 games against RPI 300+ schools, but 6 games against RPI top 100 schools is also not great at this point. There is a middle ground of a challenging but realistic schedule similar to 04-05 that concentrates on the RPI 100-250 range of schools.
|
|
BigmanU
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 915
|
Post by BigmanU on Aug 23, 2017 10:09:07 GMT -5
Pat is his own man and should do what he thinks will prepare his team for the conference schedule.
Currently 4 Big East teams (Villanova, Xavier, Seton Hall & Butler) are ranked in ESPN preseason top 25. That’s at least eight, if not 10 guaranteed games to show our worth against top 25 opponents because Providence is also in the CBS preseason poll. I don't understand what all the frustration is about. Future seasons as the team get acclimated to his system I would understand, but now I just don't see the problem.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Aug 23, 2017 10:14:13 GMT -5
So outside of Syracuse we will likely see a schedule this season that will hopefully be mostly in the 100-200 range with a few games in 200-350 range. If that ends up being true, I will be less concerned. But, we've only heard of the 300-level range opponents, and with most decent programs in November tournaments already, I'm not optimistic of getting 100-200 range opponents then, either. But, it's certainly possible. I would add that while everyone focuses on Michigan State in Portland, our likely second round opponent would have been Connecticut, which would have been a nice winnable game around the 100-range. So, the notion that our two options were getting slaughtered in Portland or playing easy games is not really true.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Aug 23, 2017 10:45:07 GMT -5
So outside of Syracuse we will likely see a schedule this season that will hopefully be mostly in the 100-200 range with a few games in 200-350 range. If that ends up being true, I will be less concerned. But, we've only heard of the 300-level range opponents, and with most decent programs in November tournaments already, I'm not optimistic of getting 100-200 range opponents then, either. But, it's certainly possible. I would add that while everyone focuses on Michigan State in Portland, our likely second round opponent would have been Connecticut, which would have been a nice winnable game around the 100-range. So, the notion that our two options were getting slaughtered in Portland or playing easy games is not really true. Have people forgotten we are losing our best 2 players from an awful team? I think calling Uconn a "winnable" game at this point is major stretch based on what we actually know about this team. Probably not a get slaughtered opponent but I wouldn't but in the winnable bracket until I actually see a team capable of winning a game or two.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2017 11:23:50 GMT -5
If that ends up being true, I will be less concerned. But, we've only heard of the 300-level range opponents, and with most decent programs in November tournaments already, I'm not optimistic of getting 100-200 range opponents then, either. But, it's certainly possible. I would add that while everyone focuses on Michigan State in Portland, our likely second round opponent would have been Connecticut, which would have been a nice winnable game around the 100-range. So, the notion that our two options were getting slaughtered in Portland or playing easy games is not really true. Have people forgotten we are losing our best 2 players from an awful team? No, but most college basketball teams lose their 2 (or more) best players pretty much every year. Awful teams, good teams, national champions. Guys graduate, go pro, transfer, violate team rules, get "dismissed from the program". The evolution of college basketball teams isn't linear at all. Teams have significant roster turnover all the time. So much of the "Georgetown is rebuilding, so we have to take it slow" mindset is so focused on two things: 1. We have such limited talent, and 2. We're implementing brand new systems and it will take a while for guys to "get it". I actually think that we have more talent than a lot of people are giving us credit for. Will they develop, and do the parts fit together? That remains to be seen (and it's on Ewing to develop them and figure out how to fit them together). And as for the time it takes to implement new systems? So be it - but in this day and age in college basketball, programs turn over 4-6 roster spots every year, so at least a third of the team is learning a new system no matter what. Part of coaching college basketball these days is re-imagining your team on the fly on an almost year-to-year basis. If you don't, you might constantly be in rebuilding mode.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Aug 23, 2017 11:50:50 GMT -5
Have people forgotten we are losing our best 2 players from an awful team? No, but most college basketball teams lose their 2 (or more) best players pretty much every year. Awful teams, good teams, national champions. Guys graduate, go pro, transfer, violate team rules, get "dismissed from the program". The evolution of college basketball teams isn't linear at all. Teams have significant roster turnover all the time. So much of the "Georgetown is rebuilding, so we have to take it slow" mindset is so focused on two things: 1. We have such limited talent, and 2. We're implementing brand new systems and it will take a while for guys to "get it". I actually think that we have more talent than a lot of people are giving us credit for. Will they develop, and do the parts fit together? That remains to be seen (and it's on Ewing to develop them and figure out how to fit them together). And as for the time it takes to implement new systems? So be it - but in this day and age in college basketball, programs turn over 4-6 roster spots every year, so at least a third of the team is learning a new system no matter what. Part of coaching college basketball these days is re-imagining your team on the fly on an almost year-to-year basis. If you don't, you might constantly be in rebuilding mode. Yea, teams to have significant roster turnover all the time. And some teams are really good each year and sometimes are really bad each year. What is your point? Do awful teams lose their best two players by long stretch and bring in an ok class and magically become less awful? What about what we have seen from this team in the past two years should realistically lead us to believe they should consider a game against a top 100 opponent winnable? Now, all of a sudden, we have more talent that people are giving us credit for (despite it not manifesting itself in years apparently) and its on Ewing to develop and fit this "talent" together? To act as if we aren't rebuilding because every team is constantly rebuilding in modern college basketball is utter nonsense. Is there any logical reason to think we are at all set up to be better than we were last year?
|
|
boxout05
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 573
|
Post by boxout05 on Aug 23, 2017 12:04:12 GMT -5
Yea, teams to have significant roster turnover all the time. And some teams are really good each year and sometimes are really bad each year. What is your point? Do awful teams lose their best two players by long stretch and bring in an ok class and magically become less awful? What about what we have seen from this team in the past two years should realistically lead us to believe they should consider a game against a top 100 opponent winnable? Other than beating UConn last year? Beating Syracuse, Oregon, Butler, Creighton, and Marquette. I hope this was tongue-in-cheek. Now, all of a sudden, we have more talent that people are giving us credit for (despite it not manifesting itself in years apparently) and its on Ewing to develop and fit this "talent" together? To act as if we aren't rebuilding because every team is constantly rebuilding in modern college basketball is utter nonsense. Rebuilding and beating UConn are not mutually exclusive nor are Rebuilding and staying in the PK80. I don't expect us to be good, but let's not label a Nov game against UConn as "unwinnable" just yet. I just hope they release the rest of the schedule soon so we can (maybe) move on to complaining about other things. All this handwringing is because they've only announced games against Alabama A&M and Maine since withdrawing from PK80.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2017 12:09:48 GMT -5
No, but most college basketball teams lose their 2 (or more) best players pretty much every year. Awful teams, good teams, national champions. Guys graduate, go pro, transfer, violate team rules, get "dismissed from the program". The evolution of college basketball teams isn't linear at all. Teams have significant roster turnover all the time. So much of the "Georgetown is rebuilding, so we have to take it slow" mindset is so focused on two things: 1. We have such limited talent, and 2. We're implementing brand new systems and it will take a while for guys to "get it". I actually think that we have more talent than a lot of people are giving us credit for. Will they develop, and do the parts fit together? That remains to be seen (and it's on Ewing to develop them and figure out how to fit them together). And as for the time it takes to implement new systems? So be it - but in this day and age in college basketball, programs turn over 4-6 roster spots every year, so at least a third of the team is learning a new system no matter what. Part of coaching college basketball these days is re-imagining your team on the fly on an almost year-to-year basis. If you don't, you might constantly be in rebuilding mode. Yea, teams to have significant roster turnover all the time. And some teams are really good each year and sometimes are really bad each year. What is your point? Do awful teams lose their best two players by long stretch and bring in an ok class and magically become less awful? What about what we have seen from this team in the past two years should realistically lead us to believe they should consider a game against a top 100 opponent winnable? Now, all of a sudden, we have more talent that people are giving us credit for (despite it not manifesting itself in years apparently) and its on Ewing to develop and fit this "talent" together? To act as if we aren't rebuilding because every team is constantly rebuilding in modern college basketball is utter nonsense. Is there any logical reason to think we are at all set up to be better than we were last year? To be honest, I have no idea. Maybe the presence Peak and Pryor (as good as they were) prevented other guys from flourishing a bit. Maybe one or more of Govan/Derrickson/Mosely make a leap, or perform better outside of JT3's system. Maybe Walker or Blair is a surprise freshman standout. Maybe Dickerson is an under-the-radar guy. Maybe Pickett is a bona fide star. Or maybe they all do suck, and we are going to suck for the foreseeable future. I'm not saying that we're not rebuilding, but I also don't think that rebuilding has to be the daunting, overwhelming, multi-year slog that people assume it has to be. I hope like hell that it's not.
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Aug 23, 2017 12:16:29 GMT -5
Keep in mind that this isn't just a rebuilding as it come to players. We do have some solid pieces. What we do need to build is a coach's knowledge of how the CBB game works. Pat has never coached a second in College Basketball so I'm ok with him taking 4 months of OOC ball to really learn how to handle the differences between NBA and CBB.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Aug 23, 2017 14:18:40 GMT -5
Yea, teams to have significant roster turnover all the time. And some teams are really good each year and sometimes are really bad each year. What is your point? Do awful teams lose their best two players by long stretch and bring in an ok class and magically become less awful? What about what we have seen from this team in the past two years should realistically lead us to believe they should consider a game against a top 100 opponent winnable? Other than beating UConn last year? Beating Syracuse, Oregon, Butler, Creighton, and Marquette. I hope this was tongue-in-cheek. Now, all of a sudden, we have more talent that people are giving us credit for (despite it not manifesting itself in years apparently) and its on Ewing to develop and fit this "talent" together? To act as if we aren't rebuilding because every team is constantly rebuilding in modern college basketball is utter nonsense. Rebuilding and beating UConn are not mutually exclusive nor are Rebuilding and staying in the PK80. I don't expect us to be good, but let's not label a Nov game against UConn as "unwinnable" just yet. I just hope they release the rest of the schedule soon so we can (maybe) move on to complaining about other things. All this handwringing is because they've only announced games against Alabama A&M and Maine since withdrawing from PK80. Do we beat any of those teams last year without Peak and Pryor? Look maybe we will be alright next year, I don't know, but people really need to be realistic about expectations. We will likely be the worst Big East team in the league by a very long shot based on what we've actually seen on the court. At this point, expecting anything else is just fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Aug 23, 2017 15:16:39 GMT -5
Have people forgotten we are losing our best 2 players from an awful team? I think calling Uconn a "winnable" game at this point is major stretch based on what we actually know about this team. Probably not a get slaughtered opponent but I wouldn't but in the winnable bracket until I actually see a team capable of winning a game or two. I certainly have not forgotten that we were a bad team, we lost our two best players, and there is no heir apparent to fill their shoes. However, when I say Connecticut would be a "winnable" game, I mean it's a game where we'd have a realistic shot at getting a win (compared to Michigan State, or Kansas if we had kept that series). That doesn't mean we would win the game. It doesn't even mean we would be 50% or better to win the game. But there's a big difference between the odds of beating Michigan State and Connecticut. We were not good last year. But, I think people have a tendency to over-state how bad we were because people were spoiled with our general success regular season prior to 2016. On KenPom, we had a ranking of 69, and in RPI we were 115. In contrast, UConn was 96 on KenPom (recall, we beat them last year!) and their RPI was 121. So yes, by those stats, we were similar to - maybe better than - Connecticut. Like Georgetown, Connecticut loses a few players who took up a lot of minutes - Rodney Purvis, Kentan Facey, and Amida Brimah. Individually, Peak and Pryor were probably better than those guys, but my point is there's no reason to think Connecticut would come into this season any better than us. So will we be bad, in the sense that we might get crushed in the Big East? Maybe. Probably, even. But that doesn't mean we couldn't beat other down major conference or mid-major conference teams. Personally, I would've taken getting wiped out by Michigan State for the experience, and then being able to maybe beat a team like Connecticut.
|
|