|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 16, 2024 20:37:20 GMT -5
I think cook played pretty good what he average like 11 points and 8 rebounds I believe. That’s not great, but it’s not bad either. I hope cook comes back we need experience down low. Sober might not be ready to start this season at center. Hopefully he will get plenty of time and experience this year. But I really don’t know a lot about him except he was top 50-60 recruit. Hope he comes in a has big impact. 11 and 8 sounds ok until you factor in that he was a traffic cone on defense Exactly. While almost everyone on the team was a net negative last year, when Cook played the team scored 1.074 points per possession and gave up 1.212 points per possession. When Cook did NOT play, the team scored 1.054 points per possession and gave up 1.10 points per possession. Obviously, the other teammates matter, but this basically means that every possesion with Cook we were a net negative of 0.138 points per possession. With Cook off the court, the net difference was a much smaller (but still net negative) 0.046. For those who don't like stats, the plain English version is that our lineups with Cook were significantly worse than our lineups without him. This is why running it back with Cook returning and getting more minutes isn't a likely plan for success. His defense is so awful that it outweighs the fact that his offense contributes some positives.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 16, 2024 15:46:30 GMT -5
Is Cooley supposed to build the center of y'alls dreams. Cooley knows what need to be done and being a reasonable man, I'm sure his is doing the best he can. Can he magically snap his fingers and oh look, said center appears...or the last three years disappears... Disappointment, not me. Cooley kept his freshman class together ... Isn't that worth something? There is a big difference between knowing what needs to be done and achieving it. I am also confident that Cooley and his staff are trying very hard. But I fear that in trying to make a big splash initially (which was a logical thing to do), we did not have a good enough backup plan for if those guys (like Cliff O.) did not commit. I assume you mean Cooley keeping the incoming freshman together. Sure, I'll give Cooley credit for that. Sorber is a great player and I am very excited to see him play in a Hoyas uniform. But Cooley himself said recently we need a center and we don't have one. That's the reason for the disappointment so far. I am hoping I am wrong and we will make some sort of unexpected play and get someone great (we also need a high percentage shooter too). But for now, we don't have anyone for center other than Sorber and Fielder. If Cooley thinks that needs to be supplemented with a transfer, then I certainly do. To be clear, the "center of y'alls dreams" is not walking through the door (though it could be Sorber in a year or two). I am not looking for Roy Hibbert to walk through the door. Just someone who can play really solid defense and not be a net negative on offense.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 16, 2024 15:41:52 GMT -5
I have to agree with hoyaboya on this one. I've written this a million times and should probably have a pre-prepared response for when it comes up. So I won't belabor this. The reason playing 300 level teams stinks is: 1. No upside. Wins are meaningless, and losses are devastating. 2. Non-competitive (assuming we don't lose to them like we did last year). 3. They aren't fun or interesting for fans. 4. They aren't fun or interesting for players. 5. They do not allow for player assessment or growth because the athleticism and skills of the other team are often on an entirely different level. 6. They destroy the OOC Strength of Schedule. For example, let's say we start off rocky but then go 10-10 in the Big East. If our OOC is full of 300s, we have no chance at the tournament (and that's even in a regular year when the committee makes better decisions than last year). 7. If you want an easy game, play a team in the mid to high 200s or low 100s instead. Yes, there is a higher chance you lose, but the games do more for development. 8. If you do not schedule hard games, by definition, you cannot get upset wins that can go a long way for a team both for tournament reasons, but also for team morale. People always talk about the big JT3 Duke win early on. That would have never happened if the same game was against Coppin State. The response often is "well, we aren't going to be good anyway, so there's no point." To that, I point to the TCU game last year, which we almost won (and actually did win) despite a really bad team. Many of the people in the "playing 300 level teams is fine" category are old school people who like to look at total wins/losses. In my mind, if we go 11-0 in the OOC, and then 5-10 in the Big East, and end up 16-15, that's still not going to make me happy because most of the wins would be meaningless. As I've said before, if you want one or two of these to start a season or during Christmas break to make it easier for the guys, I can sort of see it. Otherwise, I would never schedule 300 level teams. JT3 really was ahead of his time in scheduling. But that did not rub off on Ewing, and Cooley has never been that type of scheduler. JTII was definitely a good scheduler, no doubt. But on your other points, I just don't think playing all 10 OOC games against top 20 teams is a good idea, especially with this team. But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. hm I agree playing only top 20 teams would be silly. But no coach in Division 1 does that.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 16, 2024 13:48:08 GMT -5
I've written this a million times and should probably have a pre-prepared response for when it comes up. So I won't belabor this. The reason playing 300 level teams stinks is: 1. No upside. Wins are meaningless, and losses are devastating. 2. Non-competitive (assuming we don't lose to them like we did last year). 3. They aren't fun or interesting for fans. 4. They aren't fun or interesting for players. 5. They do not allow for player assessment or growth because the athleticism and skills of the other team are often on an entirely different level. 6. They destroy the OOC Strength of Schedule. For example, let's say we start off rocky but then go 10-10 in the Big East. If our OOC is full of 300s, we have no chance at the tournament (and that's even in a regular year when the committee makes better decisions than last year). 7. If you want an easy game, play a team in the mid to high 200s or low 100s instead. Yes, there is a higher chance you lose, but the games do more for development. 8. If you do not schedule hard games, by definition, you cannot get upset wins that can go a long way for a team both for tournament reasons, but also for team morale. People always talk about the big JT3 Duke win early on. That would have never happened if the same game was against Coppin State. The response often is "well, we aren't going to be good anyway, so there's no point." To that, I point to the TCU game last year, which we almost won (and actually did win) despite a really bad team. Many of the people in the "playing 300 level teams is fine" category are old school people who like to look at total wins/losses. In my mind, if we go 11-0 in the OOC, and then 5-10 in the Big East, and end up 16-15, that's still not going to make me happy because most of the wins would be meaningless. As I've said before, if you want one or two of these to start a season or during Christmas break to make it easier for the guys, I can sort of see it. Otherwise, I would never schedule 300 level teams. JT3 really was ahead of his time in scheduling. But that did not rub off on Ewing, and Cooley has never been that type of scheduler. Agreed, but Georgetown is caught between a rock and a hard place (again) on scheduling: Rock: Georgetown has become a Quad 3/4 opponent, so that's just not marketable to many teams. Absent interest from Fox (whose Nov/Dec schedules are football-intensive with its new Big 12 and Big 10 rights packages), it's going to get no favors from ESPN to arrange games. Hard Place: Georgetown contract with Monumental Sports, at least since 2015, has committed no less than 17 home games a season, meaning at least seven of the 11 non-conference games are likely committed to the empty arena in dates and times that may not work with many opponents. A lot of the 100-200 NET teams that Georgetown should aspire to play either aren't coming mid-week for a guarantee fee and/or want to home and home series that GU can't/won't commit to, so schools like UCLA (107) or Oklahoma State (123), for instance, aren't giving up a home game to play at Capital One Arena without something in return. What's left? NET 300+ teams, MEAC teams looking for a check, or teams that barnstorm in November on December. None of these help Georgetown's cause. I agree with most of what you write, though I think you may be overstating the situation. As to ESPN/Fox, all of our non conference games that are not home-and-away series have always been on Fox. My understanding is that's the way the deal works. I am sure getting slots for a program in the dumps like ours is not easy, but it's not impossible either. Even with more content, FS2 still often has junk on too. So it's not impossible. I mean, look at DePaul last year. While they played 3 300+ teams last year, they also played 157, 168, 54, 65, 8, 35, and 41. I realize some of those are the Big 10/Big 12 series, but still. Or take a team like USC (ranked 85 last year), which scheduled 70, 247, 82, 191, 50, 46, 152, 12, 165, and 310. They managed to get some of those 200s/100s opponents on the schedule. There's no reason we cannot do that with some trying. The Ivy League schools would actually be perfect opponents, other than the occasional programs that dip near 300. But last year, you had Cornell at 103, Brown at 191, Penn at 213, Harvard at 228, Columbia at 232. I realize those programs try to play mostly on weekends or Fridays out of conference, but they do play the occasional mid-week game. We have played some of them before (like when we played Dartmouth). There's really no reason not to schedule at least one of them a year.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 16, 2024 12:19:22 GMT -5
Blue&Grey is one of the biggest insiders & most respected members on the board made this post yesterday "We were super aggressive. This isn’t on Cooley"Is he a random twitter user? He isn't but unless he heard it directly from Cooley or someone directly involved who knows what the truth is. I'm sure we have all seen the game/experiment where you pass something down the line and by the time it gets to the end it is completely different than when it started. Either way, it might be time to Cooley to tighten up the circle. There is no benefit whatsoever to people gossiping about half-baked things people hear. If people are just making stuff up, that's a different story, but it doesn't seem to be the case here. I know people criticize Hilltop Hoops for the articles about transfers that never came to fruition. I do not know him, but I have enough trust that he's not just making stuff up. Most likely, he's talking to similar "insiders" who have half-baked information or who hear things and speculate about them when it's not justified. These Georgetown "sources" have shown themselves to be extremely unreliable of late.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 16, 2024 12:12:37 GMT -5
While classic Cs are pretty rare in the NBA, a great C is a game changer in college basketball. Since it's rare to have a skilled and productive big in the college ranks, they're going to command the big bucks. I won't be surprised to look back and see that many HM teams have the C be their highest paid NIL player. Gotta pull out the big bucks if we want to round out this roster at his point. Not only that, but simply by definition, there are fewer taller players, so the supply of centers is always going to be less supply--even with more of them staying in college longer because of NIL and because many of them will never see significant NBA minutes. As those of you who have read my posts know, I generally support Cooley and I am of the mind that we need him to turn around the program or we may be doomed long-term (for multiple reasons I won't get into here, but Georgetown's incompetence on these things is a major factor), but I am very disappointed with the search for a center. Given how much of a priority it was, and how crucial it is to our success, it is a very bad look to get nobody. I realize that ultimately Cooley will likely get SOMEONE, but we don't need SOMEONE, we need a skill good defensive big whose name is not Supreme Cook. Of course, if the only option is Cook, I'd happily take him back, as I like the guy, but he just cannot get it done on defense. Without a solid center transfer, we are basically back to hoping that Sorber is more game-ready than he should be reasonably expected to be and/or Fielder having a nice jump and also staying out of foul trouble (which he did not do last year). Will that yield better defense than Supreme Cook? Yes, it should. Will it be good enough to make us as competitive as I'd like to be? Probably not unless the individual players perform higher than expected. I still support Cooley, but at some point he needs to deliver instead of just talking about success and climbing mountains.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 16, 2024 11:59:50 GMT -5
Interest by whom? I’d much rather lose to a top 50 team than beat a 300+ team. Of course you would want more losses...it's easy content creation. Not that you haven't had enough to work with lately. I hear your point and get people will have different takes on this, but I think rolling into the BE schedule at 9-2 or 8-3, regardless of schedule, is more important than a tough schedule with a 6-5 or 5-6 record. I think another long December just kills fan engagement, which is already on life support. hm I have to agree with hoyaboya on this one. I've written this a million times and should probably have a pre-prepared response for when it comes up. So I won't belabor this. The reason playing 300 level teams stinks is: 1. No upside. Wins are meaningless, and losses are devastating. 2. Non-competitive (assuming we don't lose to them like we did last year). 3. They aren't fun or interesting for fans. 4. They aren't fun or interesting for players. 5. They do not allow for player assessment or growth because the athleticism and skills of the other team are often on an entirely different level. 6. They destroy the OOC Strength of Schedule. For example, let's say we start off rocky but then go 10-10 in the Big East. If our OOC is full of 300s, we have no chance at the tournament (and that's even in a regular year when the committee makes better decisions than last year). 7. If you want an easy game, play a team in the mid to high 200s or low 100s instead. Yes, there is a higher chance you lose, but the games do more for development. 8. If you do not schedule hard games, by definition, you cannot get upset wins that can go a long way for a team both for tournament reasons, but also for team morale. People always talk about the big JT3 Duke win early on. That would have never happened if the same game was against Coppin State. The response often is "well, we aren't going to be good anyway, so there's no point." To that, I point to the TCU game last year, which we almost won (and actually did win) despite a really bad team. Many of the people in the "playing 300 level teams is fine" category are old school people who like to look at total wins/losses. In my mind, if we go 11-0 in the OOC, and then 5-10 in the Big East, and end up 16-15, that's still not going to make me happy because most of the wins would be meaningless. As I've said before, if you want one or two of these to start a season or during Christmas break to make it easier for the guys, I can sort of see it. Otherwise, I would never schedule 300 level teams. JT3 really was ahead of his time in scheduling. But that did not rub off on Ewing, and Cooley has never been that type of scheduler.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 16, 2024 11:51:10 GMT -5
We had a random, unverifited twitter user make a claim and a bunch of posters and twitter handles running with it. Are we calling that the school publicly negotiating? Do you think Gtown wasn't recruiting DD? If so we can agree to disagree. Keep in mind Epps knew Dainja from Illinois too. It's easy to envision a scenario where Epps talks to Dainja, finds out he's a bit disgruntled, the staff talks to him, and then he goes back to Memphis, gets more money and stays. I am not sure why people always assume it's the staff meddling, rather than a player seeking it out themselves. In any event, he's staying at Memphis so it really doesn't matter. As an aside, there has to be a time at which a commitment is real. I would imagine it is upon enrollment at your new school. Please correct me if I am wrong, but once you enroll, I would imagine you are no longer in the portal, and thus cannot transfer. To the extent anybody decommits, I imagine it would have to be before summer classes start and all that.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 15, 2024 12:04:22 GMT -5
JT3's recruiting was really never a problem, at least until the last year or two. On paper, the 2014 class was really good, but really never panned out. And the Peak class was also good. But a lot of the recruits in those classes turned out to be busts for the most part, and did not live up to expectations. That, combined with the defensive rule changes after 2013, and it was just a bad situation. As far as Dainja, the guy wasn't even on most of our radars 2-3 days ago. So, if it doesn't work out, I assume the answer will be whatever it would have been before Dainja. In my mind, right now, unless we pull a rabbit out of the hat or some transfer decommits, the best case scenario is solid big at center, but not a star. And that might be enough-IF Sorber and Fielder come along at a faster rate than expected. But, I feel like in recent years, we rely a lot on IFs that never come to fruition. I am not trying to be negative, but I feel like the last recruit we had who really exploded over expectations was Otto Porter's sophomore year, and that's over a decade ago now. I am not even really taking into account that Fielder and Sorber may struggle...that's a possibility even though I really like them both...how they play aside you have to have some type of other warm body on the bench no matter what they can play minutes at the 5...somebody has to come through that door regardless of talent and NIL available...you could never (god forbid) survive an injury in that frontcourt with the present roster... Agreed. We absolutely need someone, and I think we will bring someone in. The question, though is do we bring in someone who can have an impact on Day 1 (and I don't mean someone who will be a star or top 10 center, but someone who can log solid minutes and actually contribute positively on defense and offense), or do we bring in a project type guy to sit on the bench all year. I do think that the days of filling all 13 scholarships will likely wane with time, or at least as long as free transfers/NIL exist. There's no reason to fill a roster to 13 only to have the 10-13 guys definitely leave after the season because they are disgruntled about not playing (one exception might be really good teams like Connecticut and Marquette, where you can use your winning was as a way to keep people satisfied). But, I think 10-11 is absolutely necessary. We were way too thin last year, even though we didn't have any catastrophic injuries.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 15, 2024 11:05:29 GMT -5
Alabama has Cliff, Aiden Sherrell and Nelson Louisville has Pryor/Scott/Keita and is rumored in on Waterman Oklahoma has Godwin/Wague/Keita The one school eliminated here from Zagoria's list was Georgetown. Possibilities : - Ugo eliminated Georgetown himself out of the bidding when three of the schools involved have no real need for a C and it is questionable whether they are players for a C and the only real school in this update is UNC. UNC is not dumb - they can do the math I just did above. I view this as unlikely because if Georgetown needs a C and they have a big budget, why would you eliminate pricing pressure on UNC? - Georgetown as of last night has a C and Georgetown took itself out of the bidding - the events of last night mean that Ed is basically punting on an extra C (and 2024-2025) It better not be the last option...there is no way we can go into next season with essentially 3 guys that are best fitted to play the 4 and 5...one of those guys being a freshman...one of those guys played 7 minutes a game last year... and one of those guys being a sophomore that may still to some degree be learning on the job... ....and to be clear I am super high on Sorber, Fielder and Burks but to have zero contingency plan or at the very least be prepared for a possibly injury would be coaching malpractice...if they whiff on Dain and Ugonna they still have to get someone I forget who posted it, but someone was in an alumni/donor session with Cooley last week where Cooley acknowledged the need for a center. In light of that, I think the last option (punting on a center) is extremely unlikely. Of course, punting on a center, and being unable to secure a center would yield the same outcome (no center).
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 15, 2024 11:02:46 GMT -5
I am not as plugged into the DC scene as some people are, but I feel like if Ted Leonis wanted to make a big commitment to Georgetown it would have happened already. The guy is 67. If he was going to be a huge booster of Georgetown basketball, I feel like it would have happened already. Of course, this doesn't preclude a big gift in the future or eventually as part of an estate gift, but I feel like people always point to him as a potential donor (for good reason given his wealth) yet there aren't many indications he actually has any interest in doing so.
For those of you who know more about Georgetown's big donors, am I wrong?
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 15, 2024 11:00:04 GMT -5
This is smart scheduling and a good response to the Big East's not getting a lot of teams in the tournament. Of course, when a team is good like Marquette, there's a lot of incentive to schedule this way and get a bunch of OOC wins. Scheduling is the one area where I am just not sure Cooley gets it fully. He's never scheduled strongly, and I feel like we need to be in the good November tournaments that Ewing ran away from. That new NIL-based tournament would be great, we really should go to Maui again (Providence did play there under Cooley), and the other higher profile events. As of right now, I don't believe we have one of those on the schedule at all for the future.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 15, 2024 10:56:43 GMT -5
we are closer than you think. Sorber and Mulready ended up 40 and 57 in 24/7. We haven't had a class like the 2024 Class since JT3s ill fated 2014 class. No reason we can't build on it in 2025. As everybody knows by now - Drew M. was between ranked between 50-100 on recruiting services before joining the Hoyas early. His inclusion would've placed our 2024 HS-only recruiting class right around 10th in the country on 247. It is/was really such a tremendous class for a team in our position. Adding a 2/3/4/5 to a roster that needs help at every position? Two DMV kids? Three 4-star guys and a former (pre-injury) 4-star? You couldn't have scripted a more perfect class without seriously overreaching. JT3s class(es) failed for multiple reasons (injury = White, over-rating = Ike/Reggie, too many PFs, not enough Gs, coaching...?) and wasn't helped by a lack of local names. Fingers crossed for better things this time around. Oh... and another monster '25 class. JT3's recruiting was really never a problem, at least until the last year or two. On paper, the 2014 class was really good, but really never panned out. And the Peak class was also good. But a lot of the recruits in those classes turned out to be busts for the most part, and did not live up to expectations. That, combined with the defensive rule changes after 2013, and it was just a bad situation. If that one doesn’t work out, I truly do not know where we go As far as Dainja, the guy wasn't even on most of our radars 2-3 days ago. So, if it doesn't work out, I assume the answer will be whatever it would have been before Dainja. In my mind, right now, unless we pull a rabbit out of the hat or some transfer decommits, the best case scenario is solid big at center, but not a star. And that might be enough-IF Sorber and Fielder come along at a faster rate than expected. But, I feel like in recent years, we rely a lot on IFs that never come to fruition. I am not trying to be negative, but I feel like the last recruit we had who really exploded over expectations was Otto Porter's sophomore year, and that's over a decade ago now.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 14, 2024 9:00:07 GMT -5
I think that would be a big get, !!! I suppose. McKenney: YES PLEASE! In my mind, given where the program is today and has been over the last decade, getting commitments from consensus Top 100 talent in the 2025 class is a big plus, no matter who it is or what their ranking is within the top 100. Of course, I'd love to have pick of the group, and land 3-4 guys in the top 50, but that's not where we are at right now. Hopefully Kenny Johnson's local connections will pay dividends as we move forward too.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 13, 2024 18:07:40 GMT -5
Feels like this is trying to apply a level of unnecessary precision to something that is, to be generous, an inexact science. Yes. I find it amusing that they make a big deal about how Georgetown is "4 points behind SJU, a significant gap, 17 spots in the national rankings." Meanwhile, Providence is ranked lower than us, so by definition, they are even more spots behind in the national rankings than we are. It's kind of a self-own without realizing it. I have never seen a fan base so obsessed with a former coach. What is really happening here with these trolls is that they are trying desperately to convince themselves that they're better off without the guy they really, really, really, wanted to be coaching their team. If he was so bad, then they should be happy he's gone and be more focused on their future.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 10, 2024 12:39:48 GMT -5
Good piece here from Eamonn Brennan, formerly of The Athletic: open.substack.com/pub/eamonnbrennan/p/should-georgetown-fans-be-worriedAccurately sets the baseline for improvement as needing to be a tournament team next year. “Maybe this is expecting too much too soon. But if Georgetown isn’t ready to compete for a tournament spot in year two, after such a titanic, proven hire, these questions will get louder. Georgetown should already be better.” If the "baseline" is tournament or bust this coming season, that is setting the program up for failure because it is unrealistic. I agree with the author that we "should already be better." But, we aren't. Or at least we weren't as of the last game we played this season. I do think we will be better with the incoming freshman and transfers. But imagine the following scenario: - We land a center who is solid but not great. - Over the summer, Cooley and company get some good pieces for 2025. - The freshman as a group perform well overall. Sorber shows flashes of brilliance, but is still a freshman, so do the others. - Fielder has a really nice freshman to sophomore jump. Not a Porter-like one, but really good. - We improve substantially on defense. No longer ranked 321, we are let's say 85 on defense. - Our offense improves off last year, let's say we are the 65th best offense. - Though substantially improved overall, we are in the 70-90 range on KenPom, and finish the season something like 7-13 or 8-10. We aren't in the bubble discussion but a few more wins, and we would be. Under the scenario above, where there is substantial improvement, but we aren't quite ready for the tournament, it would seem odd to say that's a failed season given the past 2-18 season. And that is particularly so if Cooley retains our good players for the following season, in which case a Year 3 tournament bid should be expected. To me, that's what I am looking for to see success. A much improved team, top 100 on offense, defense, and overall, and a scenario where if we get a little better in Year 3, we'll be an at large team. Like everyone I wanted this to happen last year. But, it didn't. It's annoying and frustrating as a fan, but there's nothing we can do about that now.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 9, 2024 16:41:16 GMT -5
Barring something unexpected or constant foul trouble, Sorber is going to log a good amount of minutes this year. If he doesn't, we are in a world of trouble. I really don't care who starts generally (though situationally, it could matter), as long as the best guys getting the most minutes and closing games out.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 9, 2024 9:42:34 GMT -5
Next guy up Baba Miller transfer from FSU...much different player...is really like a stretch 5 but certainly has the length and speed to cover the opponents center not sure about the strength...very different from Fielder and Sorber though so could see him on the floor with both of them and not being an issue...maybe someone has news on where he is looking... The only news I see at all is that he went on an unofficial visit to Kansas State in April. But it is seemingly quiet since then.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 9, 2024 9:37:12 GMT -5
I thought that under NCAA rules that these November style tournaments can only have one team from each conference. Has the rule changed? I imagine it might given that the football conferences are now so huge.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 9, 2024 9:27:58 GMT -5
It wasn’t that obvious of an answer for 20% of the voters. Who cares if casual put up this poll? Why can’t you just be ok with the fact that so many people can be objective and are disappointed with where we are? It’s OK. With winning, even casual will come around. The quicker, the better… but, for the next couple of seasons, our program will be compared to SJ and Providence, for obvious reasons. It’s common sense. 1. I don't care what Casual Hoya does or does not put on Twitter, nor do I even bother to read the site anymore. 2. I still think online polls are stupid, and trying to make conclusions from them makes no sense given that they are unscientific, poll a tiny percentage of people online, and frankly, what Joe Twitter Man thinks about the question really provides virtually no information. Casual Hoya obviously put up the poll because of his Pitino envy, which is fine. But, trying to make anything of it is pointless. 3. I am absolutely okay with people being disappointed with where we are. You should know better than most that I've been thoroughly disappointed with the program over the last several years. And I was definitely disappointed with our team last year. I've been disappointed in DeGioia's handling of the program for years. And Cooley didn't get the job done. The defense was atrocious. It wasn't what I was hoping for when he was hired. I was frustrated multiple, multiple times this past season watching the games. 4. I have no problem comparing our program to St. John's and Providence. I am not sure why you are equating comparing programs to the poll. There are many, many, better ways to compare programs than an online poll. We do it here all the time! My gripe is with the online poll. It has nothing to do with the comparison, even if I think the comparison now has only one reasonable conclusion, which is that St. John's is better situated until our program shows life. And I think it will. But, I am so scarred from our losing over the last decade that I am not going to trust in the winning until I see it. But I have optimism it can happen. I just cannot get myself too optimistic given how things have unraveled the last few years. On the flip side, there are some people (not targeted at you prhoya, I know you're a huge fan and want us to succeed), who will use any fact out there to spin things negatively or portray things in a negative light. Somebody leaves the program? I may not agree, but fair reason for negativity. We lose out on Cliff Omoruyi? Fair reason for negativity. An online poll that Casual posts seeking an answer to an obvious question? Using that to peddle negativity isn't fans showing their disappointment. It's fans trying to get in every dig they can at the coaching staff.
|
|