|
|
Post by ColumbiaHeightsHoya on Jun 21, 2024 13:56:55 GMT -5
Of course it's not. These clowns take cover under "how are my comments negative? I want the program to succeed". The level of passive aggressive trolling is exhausting (I know, I know, the ignore button is our friend ...) Put another way, if you were a prospect who looked up the “best” Hoya fan board and read the things boya et al say about our team and coach, would you want to ball your ass off for those fans? We know they are not the fan base but a small minority of way too vocal program critics, but does a 17 y o kid see that or just say pass on the putzes? I don't think a 17 YO looks at a chat board. Their parents, maybe. Twitter, instagram, anything under 4 seconds. |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,410
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Jun 21, 2024 14:41:06 GMT -5
Let's be honest the transfer portal & NIL aren't new anymore so this adjust accordingly narrative is weak in my view, as I've stated many times look at how Smart handles it at Marquette. NIL is essentially in its second season. The transfer portal rules are still evolving, including in the last month. I am not suggesting that Cooley has done a great job with the portal, but you can't just focus on retention of players alone. Especially when your players went 2-19 (yes of course so did the staff). If we are improved next season and we don't retain most of the core guys, then you have to assess your priorities. I think you can & should focus on retention alone or at a minimum 95% of the time, by focusing on retention a staff won't have to look at the portal nearly as much. The staff has gotten another group of seemingly talented players, why focus on anything other than getting them to buy into your program? |
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jun 21, 2024 15:10:36 GMT -5
NIL is essentially in its second season. The transfer portal rules are still evolving, including in the last month. I am not suggesting that Cooley has done a great job with the portal, but you can't just focus on retention of players alone. Especially when your players went 2-19 (yes of course so did the staff). If we are improved next season and we don't retain most of the core guys, then you have to assess your priorities. I think you can & should focus on retention alone or at a minimum 95% of the time, by focusing on retention a staff won't have to look at the portal nearly as much. The staff has gotten another group of seemingly talented players, why focus on anything other than getting them to buy into your program? Right now, the goal should be to get everyone to buy into the program. And retaining guys like Sorber is key. So the goal should always be retention (when your players are good or have potential, at least). So I agree. But, the reality is that next March, the portal will open, and the likelihood some players will leave is high. And the likelihood WE will need to go into the portal (or want to) and get some good players will be very high too. It really isn't an either/or. Some of Marquette's players were originally transfers who stayed. So, yeah, you need to retain players for sure. But you also need to be prepared to hit the portal when the time is right. But I agree with you in principle. The ideal is to have a great roster that you retain, and then you use the portal to plug gaps. |
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,604
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jun 21, 2024 16:01:59 GMT -5
Interesting that Peavy refers to himself as a guard. There are many Hoyas fans that are trying to cope with where the roster is right now by plugging in out of position players into their hypothetical lineups.. Isn’t that college basketball in a nutshell these days? Wait maybe that’s more NBA. |
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Jun 21, 2024 17:30:27 GMT -5
I think you can & should focus on retention alone or at a minimum 95% of the time, by focusing on retention a staff won't have to look at the portal nearly as much. The staff has gotten another group of seemingly talented players, why focus on anything other than getting them to buy into your program? Right now, the goal should be to get everyone to buy into the program. And retaining guys like Sorber is key. So the goal should always be retention (when your players are good or have potential, at least). So I agree. But, the reality is that next March, the portal will open, and the likelihood some players will leave is high. And the likelihood WE will need to go into the portal (or want to) and get some good players will be very high too. It really isn't an either/or. Some of Marquette's players were originally transfers who stayed. So, yeah, you need to retain players for sure. But you also need to be prepared to hit the portal when the time is right. But I agree with you in principle. The ideal is to have a great roster that you retain, and then you use the portal to plug gaps. Exactly. Our roster has been so poor lately that wholesale retention would be a detriment to the program. But of course ideally you bring in talent, coach them up, and have your roster develop together. |
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,622
|
Post by prhoya on Jun 22, 2024 0:06:28 GMT -5
NIL is essentially in its second season. The transfer portal rules are still evolving, including in the last month. I am not suggesting that Cooley has done a great job with the portal, but you can't just focus on retention of players alone. Especially when your players went 2-19 (yes of course so did the staff). If we are improved next season and we don't retain most of the core guys, then you have to assess your priorities. I think you can & should focus on retention alone or at a minimum 95% of the time, by focusing on retention a staff won't have to look at the portal nearly as much. The staff has gotten another group of seemingly talented players, why focus on anything other than getting them to buy into your program? To retain good players under the current rules, a coach needs to win, have the NIL$ and ideally reach the NCAAT. That's why it was so important for Cooley to build a roster to win as much as possible in Year #1 to show that the program was moving in the right direction, instead of going with an undermanned team and risk finishing in the bottom of the league. Now, it's Year 2 and Cooley has problems closing on the top talent he's gone after (even though he has everything to attract them, except a horrible record in Year 1) and in retaining players. If we win 2 to 6 BE games this year, do you think Cooley will be able to retain all of his eligible players needed to build a winner like you're suggesting? If he does not, then the program is back where it started and not moving forward. How can a staff which focuses on retention alone, but loses most of its games, keep a player who wants to win now and is offered by a winning program? In other words, retaining players might not be up to how much love/focus/etc... a staff shows its players. You like to point out Shaka Smart's MU as an example of retaining players, instead of pointing to similarly horrible teams like ours last year. I bet that if Cooley wins like Shaka, then he will retain players just like Shaka. |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,410
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Jun 22, 2024 2:41:07 GMT -5
I think you can & should focus on retention alone or at a minimum 95% of the time, by focusing on retention a staff won't have to look at the portal nearly as much. The staff has gotten another group of seemingly talented players, why focus on anything other than getting them to buy into your program? Right now, the goal should be to get everyone to buy into the program. And retaining guys like Sorber is key. So the goal should always be retention (when your players are good or have potential, at least). So I agree. But, the reality is that next March, the portal will open, and the likelihood some players will leave is high. And the likelihood WE will need to go into the portal (or want to) and get some good players will be very high too. It really isn't an either/or. Some of Marquette's players were originally transfers who stayed. So, yeah, you need to retain players for sure. But you also need to be prepared to hit the portal when the time is right. But I agree with you in principle. The ideal is to have a great roster that you retain, and then you use the portal to plug gaps. It's funny to me how you & others are always ready to kick players to the curb now, more patience is needed in my view. Marquette had transfers at the start of Smart's time there because he had to build a roster after Wojo was fired. After the staff has created a solid culture/core with the current roster my ideal scenario would be for the staff to land some of the HS prospects they're recruiting right now which would allow the staff to go into next spring having a very good idea of what the roster will be after the season is over.. It surprises me how HS recruiting doesn't even register for you & others on the board, it's all about the portal. |
|
jackofjoy
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 309
|
Post by jackofjoy on Jun 22, 2024 5:30:39 GMT -5
I think you can & should focus on retention alone or at a minimum 95% of the time, by focusing on retention a staff won't have to look at the portal nearly as much. The staff has gotten another group of seemingly talented players, why focus on anything other than getting them to buy into your program? To retain good players under the current rules, a coach needs to win, have the NIL$ and ideally reach the NCAAT. That's why it was so important for Cooley to build a roster to win as much as possible in Year #1 to show that the program was moving in the right direction, instead of going with an undermanned team and risk finishing in the bottom of the league. Now, it's Year 2 and Cooley has problems closing on the top talent he's gone after ( even though he has everything to attract them, except a horrible record in Year 1) and in retaining players. If we win 2 to 6 BE games this year, do you think Cooley will be able to retain all of his eligible players needed to build a winner like you're suggesting? If he does not, then the program is back where it started and not moving forward. How can a staff which focuses on retention alone, but loses most of its games, keep a player who wants to win now and is offered by a winning program? In other words, retaining players might not be up to how much love/focus/etc... a staff shows its players. You like to point out Shaka Smart's MU as an example of retaining players, instead of pointing to similarly horrible teams like ours last year. I bet that if Cooley wins like Shaka, then he will retain players just like Shaka. Talk about burying the lede … |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,410
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Jun 22, 2024 12:00:56 GMT -5
I think you can & should focus on retention alone or at a minimum 95% of the time, by focusing on retention a staff won't have to look at the portal nearly as much. The staff has gotten another group of seemingly talented players, why focus on anything other than getting them to buy into your program? That's why it was so important for Cooley to build a roster to win as much as possible in Year #1 to show that the program was moving in the right direction, instead of going with an undermanned team and risk finishing in the bottom of the league. Now, it's Year 2 and Cooley has problems closing on the top talent he's gone after (even though he has everything to attract them, except a horrible record in Year 1) and in retaining players. If we win 2 to 6 BE games this year, do you think Cooley will be able to retain all of his eligible players needed to build a winner like you're suggesting? If he does not, then the program is back where it started and not moving forward. How can a staff which focuses on retention alone, but loses most of its games, keep a player who wants to win now and is offered by a winning program? In other words, retaining players might not be up to how much love/focus/etc... a staff shows its players. You like to point out Shaka Smart's MU as an example of retaining players, instead of pointing to similarly horrible teams like ours last year. I bet that if Cooley wins like Shaka, then he will retain players just like Shaka. Styles is a good player, Gtown had enough in NIL to retain him but chose not to right? Can anyone argue the team would be better off with Styles & Cook on board? I wouldn't want Cook playing heavy minutes but in limited time he'd be solid plus the practice value he'd bring banging against the current bigs would help too. The choices of the staff shouldn't be ignored in my view |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,992
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 22, 2024 12:55:47 GMT -5
Styles is a good player, Gtown had enough in NIL to retain him but chose not to right? Presumably, since we were pursuing high priced bigs (and maybe still be pursuing a big), there was enough money to retain Styles. However, there may not have been enough money to retain Styles and pursue a big. Hindsight is 20/20 here, and of course, having Styles and no big would be better than no Styles and no big. But if we look at that decision in the moment, would you have supported re-signing Styles over pursuing a big? I wouldn't have. Especially since the story seems to be that Styles wanted a significant raise -- at some point, you have to allocate your money smart positionally. I suspect that the staff would have been happy to retain Styles at a similar price point, but these are things we will never know. Expecting any staff to bat 1.000 is just unreasonable. And while it's a loss to not get a big, and sure, I get the idea that you'd rather have a returning Styles than Peavy, but I think these decisions need to be evaluated in the context of the time. Could the staff had known that getting Styles would depart after getting Peavy / not getting a raise? Maybe, but that's an odds gamble. Maybe he was already demanding a raise they didn't want to pay. Could the staff had known they were going to strike out on bigs? Seems to me everyone missed on that market. It's kind of like your comment to 2003 where you said: Nothing 2003 looked like he was kicking anyone to the curb. The reality is that if a player doesn't get PT, they become a significant transfer risk even if you want to retain them. This isn't necessarily about patience -- the players have choices and are now looking for places they can earn immediate paydays. (Lastly, I'll differ on Cook a bit, honestly. I'm not entirely sure I would want him back, although some of that is actually not wanting him as a "veteran security blanket" -- I don't care if Sorber and Fielder need work. If Cook is the alternative, I'd rather bite the bullet with the higher potential guys. And even if we go down, I'm not entirely certain going small isn't better. Admittedly, though, if a coach were able to make the right decision perfectly, then yes, you'd want the depth.) |
|
|
|
Post by michaelgrahmstylie on Jun 22, 2024 13:03:16 GMT -5
My thought on operating in this new environment of NIL that we find ourselves is that, as a coach, you have to lay it out there to your current players what you have that is available for them in terms of pay. For example, I would be willing to pay you X amount of dollars for your service for next year.
Now, it is up to the player to decide if he should accept or look for greener pastures. I do believe that this is the situation that programs are finding themselves in. A potential problem arises when a new player is brought in and the current player gets wind of how much you are prepared to pay this new player. It is a very difficult situation, one created by this new system that has torn down all the walls of safety for programs. This new system needs to be scrapped immediately, and sanity needs to be restored to college basketball! We have unleashed a multiple headed monster, a completely unmanageable, untenable situation. College basketball coaches cannot be happy! And then we over here are talking about all of this as if it were ever so simple. It is not!
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,622
|
Post by prhoya on Jun 22, 2024 13:35:05 GMT -5
To retain good players under the current rules, a coach needs to win, have the NIL$ and ideally reach the NCAAT. That's why it was so important for Cooley to build a roster to win as much as possible in Year #1 to show that the program was moving in the right direction, instead of going with an undermanned team and risk finishing in the bottom of the league. Now, it's Year 2 and Cooley has problems closing on the top talent he's gone after (even though he has everything to attract them, except a horrible record in Year 1) and in retaining players. If we win 2 to 6 BE games this year, do you think Cooley will be able to retain all of his eligible players needed to build a winner like you're suggesting? If he does not, then the program is back where it started and not moving forward. How can a staff which focuses on retention alone, but loses most of its games, keep a player who wants to win now and is offered by a winning program? In other words, retaining players might not be up to how much love/focus/etc... a staff shows its players. You like to point out Shaka Smart's MU as an example of retaining players, instead of pointing to similarly horrible teams like ours last year. I bet that if Cooley wins like Shaka, then he will retain players just like Shaka. Styles is a good player, Gtown had enough in NIL to retain him but chose not to right? Can anyone argue the team would be better off with Styles & Cook on board? I wouldn't want Cook playing heavy minutes but in limited time he'd be solid plus the practice value he'd bring banging against the current bigs would help too. The choices of the staff shouldn't be ignored in my view Thanks, you made my point with Dontrez Styles. First, the details of Dontrez’s move were not publicly known (and yes, the rumors were out there), so it’s useless to discuss those circumstances. Secondly, what is known is that he’s a senior leaving a bottom-dwelling team and going to play close to home for a Final Four team with a healthy NIL$ budget. His new coach has proven he can build a winner under the current rules. His chosen philosophy is using older players from the transfer portal. Dontrez fits his philosophy. In fact, under the current rules, Keatts is the complete opposite of Cooley, who in two years at GU has an average of two upperclassmen per year and relies in underclassmen. Remember, Styles entered the portal on April 15 and signed with NCSt on April 18. Various GU players had entered the portal too. Basically, a month after the season, Cooley was still spinning wheels and missing on signing top players with an alleged Top 5 NIL$. It looked like another incomplete roster for 2024-25 destined to the bottom of the BE. Finally, I cannot blame Styles for wanting to play for a NCAAT with a shot at a title in his last season of college basketball. Etomic, how do you retain a player like Styles under these circumstances? |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,410
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Jun 22, 2024 14:57:24 GMT -5
Styles is a good player, Gtown had enough in NIL to retain him but chose not to right? Presumably, since we were pursuing high priced bigs (and maybe still be pursuing a big), there was enough money to retain Styles. However, there may not have been enough money to retain Styles and pursue a big. Hindsight is 20/20 here, and of course, having Styles and no big would be better than no Styles and no big. But if we look at that decision in the moment, would you have supported re-signing Styles over pursuing a big? I wouldn't have. Especially since the story seems to be that Styles wanted a significant raise -- at some point, you have to allocate your money smart positionally. I suspect that the staff would have been happy to retain Styles at a similar price point, but these are things we will never know. Expecting any staff to bat 1.000 is just unreasonable. And while it's a loss to not get a big, and sure, I get the idea that you'd rather have a returning Styles than Peavy, but I think these decisions need to be evaluated in the context of the time. Could the staff had known that getting Styles would depart after getting Peavy / not getting a raise? Maybe, but that's an odds gamble. Maybe he was already demanding a raise they didn't want to pay. Could the staff had known they were going to strike out on bigs? Seems to me everyone missed on that market. It's kind of like your comment to 2003 where you said: Nothing 2003 looked like he was kicking anyone to the curb. The reality is that if a player doesn't get PT, they become a significant transfer risk even if you want to retain them. This isn't necessarily about patience -- the players have choices and are now looking for places they can earn immediate paydays.(Lastly, I'll differ on Cook a bit, honestly. I'm not entirely sure I would want him back, although some of that is actually not wanting him as a "veteran security blanket" -- I don't care if Sorber and Fielder need work. If Cook is the alternative, I'd rather bite the bullet with the higher potential guys. And even if we go down, I'm not entirely certain going small isn't better. Admittedly, though, if a coach were able to make the right decision perfectly, then yes, you'd want the depth.) The only big Gtown chased where there'd be any debate on was CO, and I would have definitely chosen to keep Styles over him. I posted numerous times that I wasn't a fan of his game at all, plus I knew the chances were slim he'd choose to play for a rebuilding program in his last season of eligibility. The rest are no brainers in my view, Styles over Stewart, Yup! The same goes for Awaka or Dainja or any other possibility over the last month or so. Batting .1000% is unreasonable to expect and to be clear, I still want Peavy on the squad with Styles. I think Styles asked for more once he realized what Peavy was getting. It's not unreasonable to want them to concentrate on getting runners on base before swinging for the fences. This is two years in a row they were heavily involved with players that had little chance of getting in HD & CO and both years they've started the summer session shorthanded. That's bad planning in my view. For me, these critiques aren't hindsight RB got plenty of PT last year, he's not here anymore because the staff made it clear that they would be in the market for "veteran guards". The same goes for Bristol. Folks can't pretend as if the coaches aren't nudging players to the door in many cases. |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,410
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Jun 22, 2024 15:06:14 GMT -5
Styles is a good player, Gtown had enough in NIL to retain him but chose not to right? Can anyone argue the team would be better off with Styles & Cook on board? I wouldn't want Cook playing heavy minutes but in limited time he'd be solid plus the practice value he'd bring banging against the current bigs would help too. The choices of the staff shouldn't be ignored in my view Thanks, you made my point with Dontrez Styles. First, the details of Dontrez’s move were not publicly known (and yes, the rumors were out there), so it’s useless to discuss those circumstances. Secondly, what is known is that he’s a senior leaving a bottom-dwelling team and going to play close to home for a Final Four team with a healthy NIL$ budget. His new coach has proven he can build a winner under the current rules. His chosen philosophy is using older players from the transfer portal. Dontrez fits his philosophy. In fact, under the current rules, Keatts is the complete opposite of Cooley, who in two years at GU has an average of two upperclassmen per year and relies in underclassmen. Remember, Styles entered the portal on April 15 and signed with NCSt on April 18. Various GU players had entered the portal too. Basically, a month after the season, Cooley was still spinning wheels and missing on signing top players with an alleged Top 5 NIL$. It looked like another incomplete roster for 2024-25 destined to the bottom of the BE. Finally, I cannot blame Styles for wanting to play for a NCAAT with a shot at a title in his last season of college basketball. Etomic, how do you retain a player like Styles under these circumstances? So I have to ignore the rumors that Styles asked for more NIL but was denied by Gtown plus pretend as if NC State has a shot at the title this coming season? |
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,622
|
Post by prhoya on Jun 22, 2024 15:11:35 GMT -5
Thanks, you made my point with Dontrez Styles. First, the details of Dontrez’s move were not publicly known (and yes, the rumors were out there), so it’s useless to discuss those circumstances. Secondly, what is known is that he’s a senior leaving a bottom-dwelling team and going to play close to home for a Final Four team with a healthy NIL$ budget. His new coach has proven he can build a winner under the current rules. His chosen philosophy is using older players from the transfer portal. Dontrez fits his philosophy. In fact, under the current rules, Keatts is the complete opposite of Cooley, who in two years at GU has an average of two upperclassmen per year and relies in underclassmen. Remember, Styles entered the portal on April 15 and signed with NCSt on April 18. Various GU players had entered the portal too. Basically, a month after the season, Cooley was still spinning wheels and missing on signing top players with an alleged Top 5 NIL$. It looked like another incomplete roster for 2024-25 destined to the bottom of the BE. Finally, I cannot blame Styles for wanting to play for a NCAAT with a shot at a title in his last season of college basketball. Etomic, how do you retain a player like Styles under these circumstances? So I have to ignore the rumors that Styles asked for more NIL but was denied by Gtown plus pretend as if NC State has a shot at the title this coming season? You already pretend losing programs like Gtown can retain players, so yeah. |
|
|
|
Post by BeantownHoya on Jun 22, 2024 15:20:36 GMT -5
So I have to ignore the rumors that Styles asked for more NIL but was denied by Gtown plus pretend as if NC State has a shot at the title this coming season? You already pretend losing programs like Gtown can retain players, so yeah. Cmon that was kind of funny...we all know NC State is not winning a title...their a borderline top 35 team... |
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jun 22, 2024 15:50:56 GMT -5
Right now, the goal should be to get everyone to buy into the program. And retaining guys like Sorber is key. So the goal should always be retention (when your players are good or have potential, at least). So I agree. But, the reality is that next March, the portal will open, and the likelihood some players will leave is high. And the likelihood WE will need to go into the portal (or want to) and get some good players will be very high too. It really isn't an either/or. Some of Marquette's players were originally transfers who stayed. So, yeah, you need to retain players for sure. But you also need to be prepared to hit the portal when the time is right. But I agree with you in principle. The ideal is to have a great roster that you retain, and then you use the portal to plug gaps. It's funny to me how you & others are always ready to kick players to the curb now, more patience is needed in my view. Marquette had transfers at the start of Smart's time there because he had to build a roster after Wojo was fired. After the staff has created a solid culture/core with the current roster my ideal scenario would be for the staff to land some of the HS prospects they're recruiting right now which would allow the staff to go into next spring having a very good idea of what the roster will be after the season is over.. It surprises me how HS recruiting doesn't even register for you & others on the board, it's all about the portal. I don't understand how you interpreted anything I wrote as wanting to kick kids to the curb. I want to retain our entire current roster going into the following year. And I wanted to retain Brumbaugh, Styles, Epps, Fielder, and Cook. With Cook, I think there is an element of addition by substraction on the defensive end, but otherwise, I wanted everyone else back. |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,410
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Jun 22, 2024 16:21:09 GMT -5
It's funny to me how you & others are always ready to kick players to the curb now, more patience is needed in my view. Marquette had transfers at the start of Smart's time there because he had to build a roster after Wojo was fired. After the staff has created a solid culture/core with the current roster my ideal scenario would be for the staff to land some of the HS prospects they're recruiting right now which would allow the staff to go into next spring having a very good idea of what the roster will be after the season is over.. It surprises me how HS recruiting doesn't even register for you & others on the board, it's all about the portal. I don't understand how you interpreted anything I wrote as wanting to kick kids to the curb. I want to retain our entire current roster going into the following year. And I wanted to retain Brumbaugh, Styles, Epps, Fielder, and Cook. With Cook, I think there is an element of addition by substraction on the defensive end, but otherwise, I wanted everyone else back. To be fair, I stated you’re always ready to kick kids to the curb not that you want to kick them to the curb. I say this because after writing that the goal should be retention you put “if they’re good or have potential” in parentheses. To me, that’s you reserving the right to move players out if things don’t go well. My bad for misunderstanding your intent |
|
jwp91
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,403
|
Post by jwp91 on Jun 22, 2024 17:26:51 GMT -5
There are two things that have missing in the past for posts.
These program/player relationships are a two way street. We may have wanted Cook back for 10-15 minutes, but he didn't want us for that role. Based on reading the tea leaves if we gave him a big fat raise and promised him to start and play 30 minutes a game he was happy to return. That wasn't on the table for us.
Styles apparently wanted more NIL, but based on Peavy and McKenna, we were fine if he left if he wanted a raise.
The 2nd thing is that when you sign a player you are setting a precedent that will affect your future. If Sorber is who we think he is, how much is he going to ask for next year if you pay some stiff C $1M. We may need to pay up for another 5, but you better allocate that amount for Fielder and Sorber next year if they develop as expected.
Those people who think CO wouldn't have had a big impact on our defense and in the PNR combining with Mack are just revealing how much they know about CBB.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,604
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jun 23, 2024 4:08:17 GMT -5
There are two things that have missing in the past for posts. These program/player relationships are a two way street. We may have wanted Cook back for 10-15 minutes, but he didn't want us for that role. Based on reading the tea leaves if we gave him a big fat raise and promised him to start and play 30 minutes a game he was happy to return. That wasn't on the table for us. Styles apparently wanted more NIL, but based on Peavy and McKenna, we were fine if he left if he wanted a raise. The 2nd thing is that when you sign a player you are setting a precedent that will affect your future. If Sorber is who we think he is, how much is he going to ask for next year if you pay some stiff C $1M. We may need to pay up for another 5, but you better allocate that amount for Fielder and Sorber next year if they develop as expected. Those people who think CO wouldn't have had a big impact on our defense and in the PNR combining with Mack are just revealing how much they know about CBB. I am not trying to make excuses because there is a bunch of blame Cooley must take, but from what I have been piecing together for the past two months it does seem as if he had been “doing the math” so far as keeping his core young players together for multiple years. And by young I mean any guys he has brought in since his arrival who were not yet upperclassmen in college (which means Jayden falls under that category). The one person who he didn’t retain was Rowan which shocked me at first. However there may have been some off court stuff with Rowan that led to a parting of ways. It has been discussed on HR. Since I am uncertain whether it has been mentioned on HT, I won’t go into it any further. |
|
