|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 29, 2024 11:15:43 GMT -5
I used both my eyeballs and statistics. My eyeballs say that Cook has very poor defensive instincts, and very poor at help defense. Statistics also show that our rim defense was 362 out of 362. Of course, I do not blame Cook solely for that, but by the end of the season, our rim defense and overall defense was much stronger with Fielder than Cook--a pretty good indication that Cook was a very weak defensive player, particularly at the rim and in helping. As others like SFHoya99 have put it more eloquently than I can, it is unrealistic to expect guards to never get beat. It happens all the time on the best college teams, and that's why you need help defense. So, in that respect, Cook's rim defense is significantly more important than Epps'. No matter who our guards are, they are going to get beaten, and we will need help defense to get stops. Cook showed this past year that he cannot do that. For example, there were times when Epps got beat, and there just was no help defense because Cook failed to notice or rotate. Not that Fielder was great either, but his rotations and help defense were much better, particularly by the end of the season (plus he was a freshman and Cook was senior, so there's reason to expect Fielder to get better). As for Epps, I do not think his on ball defense is nearly as bad as people say it is. His off-ball defense is bad, and his turnovers are bad. He's not a great defender, either, but his weaknesses on defense are less central to the number one problem facing our defense last year. You simply cannot give up as many points at the rim and expect to win, and Cook was a major part in allowing that to happen. You didn’t answer my question. Again, do you think Epps will play the same way next year as he did last/this year? I actually realized that after I hit Create Post, and so edited to add it. You were just too quick to the draw for me to do it and have it go unnoticed.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 29, 2024 11:09:34 GMT -5
The defensive end keeps him from having significant value for longer stretches though, unfortunately. You keep saying this. Let me ask you, do you think Epps will play the same way next year as he did last/this year? Note: I’m not addressing any rumors re: Cook. I used both my eyeballs and statistics. My eyeballs say that Cook has very poor defensive instincts, and very poor at help defense. Statistics also show that our rim defense was 362 out of 362. Of course, I do not blame Cook solely for that, but by the end of the season, our rim defense and overall defense was much stronger with Fielder than Cook--a pretty good indication that Cook was a very weak defensive player, particularly at the rim and in helping. As others like SFHoya99 have put it more eloquently than I can, it is unrealistic to expect guards to never get beat. It happens all the time on the best college teams, and that's why you need help defense. So, in that respect, Cook's rim defense is significantly more important than Epps' defending guards. No matter who our guards are, they are going to get beaten, and we will need help defense to get stops. Cook showed this past year that he cannot do that. For example, there were times when Epps got beat, and there just was no help defense because Cook failed to notice or rotate. Not that Fielder was great either, but his rotations and help defense were much better, particularly by the end of the season (plus he was a freshman and Cook was senior, so there's reason to expect Fielder to get better). As for Epps, I do not think his on ball defense is nearly as bad as people say it is. His off-ball defense is bad, and his turnovers are bad. He's not a great defender, either, but his weaknesses on defense are less central to the number one problem facing our defense last year. You simply cannot give up as many points at the rim and expect to win, and Cook was a major part in allowing that to happen. Will Epps play differently this year on defense (I assume this is your question)? I don't know. Generally, I think if Epps plays more off-ball himself because of Mack and he is surrounded by better defenders (Peavy, for example, and Omoruyi if he comes, and Sorber), he very well might play better. The thing about Epps' issues (particularly on offense) is that they aren't inherent to his ability. For example, if he's off ball and is more conscious of passing, he can use less possessions. With Cook, the defense is what it is. It's not a matter of instruction. He just cannot do it. Lastly, when I saw Cook play in person, it really hit me hard that the guy just had bad instincts on defense. It's less easy to see in person, but it was very evident in person. I do not live in DC so I can only get to limited games, but my friend does and attended many games, and noticed the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 29, 2024 11:04:36 GMT -5
You have to be in the portal by May 1st ,right? So it makes sense to get in the portal and then see how things play out I have thought about this before--theoretically, it would behoove everybody in Division 1 to enter the portal to keep their options open. But obviously, there are practical problems with that (i.e., angering coaches, actually wanting to stay at your home school, losing out on NIL because of your antics, etc.). There has to be some effective end to the period when players can commit, though, because in-season transfers aren't allowed without sitting. But here's a question. Let's say Player A PG goes into the portal before May 1. He fashions himself as a high major player, but nobody else does. He's left without a home and decides not to play. In November the same year, High Major Team X's PG has a massive injury, and will be out the whole season. Can Player A transfer into High Major Team X in November and play immediately? I would assume not if Player A is enrolled at another college that semester. But what if he's not in college at all?
|
|
|
Transfers
Apr 29, 2024 10:20:25 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 29, 2024 10:20:25 GMT -5
This was already posted in the Hoya Off Season thread, but feel like it should be here too for those following Transfer news: With Awaka off the Board, and the Kentucky transfer likely going to Alabama, is Cliff O. the only big we are on in the portal? Now feeling like Cook should have waited to see how this played out... There are rumors on Twitter than if we only land one big in the portal, rather than two, that Cook could return. A front court of Omoruyi, Fielder, Sorber, and Cook would make me happy though I doubt he’d stay in that scenario since he likely wouldn’t get many minutes. But I think in spot minutes Cook could have value on the offensive end. The defensive end keeps him from having significant value for longer stretches though, unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 29, 2024 10:12:08 GMT -5
This was already posted in the Hoya Off Season thread, but feel like it should be here too for those following Transfer news:
With Awaka off the Board, and the Kentucky transfer likely going to Alabama, is Cliff O. the only big we are on in the portal?
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 29, 2024 9:52:34 GMT -5
If what people are saying is true, and even graduate transfers cannot transfer after May 1 (like Akok did last year in August), then unless Mutombo enters the transfer portal before May 1, it seems like the two options would be to either stick with Georgetown in a likely small role as he had last year, or simply graduate and not play any more college basketball. If he's going to play college basketball, I'd love to keep him around. But, if he graduates, and wants to spend time with his father, nobody could blame him for that either. Either way, I wish him the best. He seems like a great kid.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 29, 2024 9:49:30 GMT -5
He's visiting North Carolina this week and visited Kansas State last week. I think we're getting him as the highest bidder. Judging rosters, I'd say UNC will be his choice Interesting. Why do you think UNC over us? Because UNC is a stronger team/stronger roster?
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 29, 2024 9:26:19 GMT -5
Looks like Cliff O. asked for too much during his Alabama visit this past weekend, so Nate Oats moved on and took the Kentucky center. Any word on who else Cliff O. might be considering?
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 28, 2024 15:40:54 GMT -5
I was curious about how On3 does their valuations, and this is what their website says: That would explain Bronny James' value, as his basketball ability doesn't warrant being one of the top guys. But exposure might. I think any valuation that puts value on the actual "marketing" component is a pretty big mistake. Bronny might actually be the one player in men's basketball where that's not true -- but in general, this is people paying for performance and what really matters is how rabid the wealthy donors of a program are. Agreed. I applaud On3 for trying to create a metric that people can use, but it's got major problems if you look at the actual valuations they create for many people. I completely agree with you on marketing. Each year in college basketball there are, at best, a handful of guys (if any) whose notoriety actually reaches the level where it might increase their NIL value. Other than maybe Bronny James (whose fame is really derivative of his father), I cannot think of any male college basketball players this season who have the notoriety of Caitlin Clark, for example. The real question on marketing is whether non-basketball people recognize the person. Both last year, and then this year, Clark has been in the news so much that her exposure has been well beyond what is normal for any collegiate athlete. People will recognize Bronny James because he's Lebron's son. Beyond that? Pretty much nobody is even close to Clark's level.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 28, 2024 15:35:52 GMT -5
Agreed. While I realize it is the off season and we do not have much to talk about, the idea that walk-ons should play is crazy to me unless they are a rare diamond in the rough who is a late bloomer or something like that. Obviously, this is not always literally the case, but if you are a walk on it essentially means that all D-1 coaches have passed over you in recruiting. If that's true, you likely do not have the talent or skill to justify real time. Now, of course there are exceptions. Jon Wallace was originally a walk-on, etc. But, for the most part, walk ons are walk ons for a reason--preferred or not. I still find the Austin Montgomery thing to be funny. The argument goes that Ed Cooley had a walk-on on the bench who could have improved our team, but intentionally kept him on the bench because? I'm not sure why, which is why the whole thing is humorous. There is a pretty big leap from saying walk on should play vs noting that his differential skill set is one that is in short supply on the current roster. Well, I was responding to the chain where the one poster said that the walk-ons should play. To be clear, as others said, I think it is important to have walk ons for various reasons--practice, good academic high character guys, high basketball IQ guys, etc. That was never the point. But when people say walk ons should play, I think that is does not make sense unless it happens to be one of the rare diamonds in the rough who actually are Division 1 level players. As far as putting a walk on in during garbage time? Fine. To send a message? Maybe, but I cannot think of many instances in Big East play where other teams (all of whom were better than us other than DePaul) who put in walk ons to send messages. Really, the scholarship roster should be deep enough (and I know last year it wasn't) that if you have to send a message, it's a scholarship player who gets the call, not a walk on. Put differently: if we are at a point during the season where Cooley needs to put in a walk on to send a message, or for quality play, we are already in a host of trouble and not playing at the level we should be at. I guess that's where we were in the 2023-2024 season. Hopefully we will never repeat that again, at least not under Cooley. As far as his skill set, I'll leave that to others to scrutinize since I don't want to speak with no knowledge. And I agree that skill set, if it exists, would probably be great in practice to help other guys. But Division I high major level skills from someone who wasn't recruited to Division 1? I am skeptical until shown otherwise. EDIT:*To be clear, the amusing aspect to me has nothing to do with the walk-ons themselves who I appreciate, but rather fans who feel like their lack of play was somehow improper or would have made a difference. As I said, if you think that is so, then you think Cooley intentionally (or though gross incompetence) kept guys on the bench even though they could have helped us perform better--even though Cooley saw them all in practice every day. To me, that makes no sense--especially since on some rare occasions Cooley did play Bacote.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 28, 2024 12:42:47 GMT -5
Wow. We’re already starting the “walk-on freshman is better than the four guys in front of him at the same position” HoyaTalk narrative? I would have expected that in January, not April. Agreed. While I realize it is the off season and we do not have much to talk about, the idea that walk-ons should play is crazy to me unless they are a rare diamond in the rough who is a late bloomer or something like that. Obviously, this is not always literally the case, but if you are a walk on it essentially means that all D-1 coaches have passed over you in recruiting. If that's true, you likely do not have the talent or skill to justify real time. Now, of course there are exceptions. Jon Wallace was originally a walk-on, etc. But, for the most part, walk ons are walk ons for a reason--preferred or not. I still find the Austin Montgomery thing to be funny. The argument goes that Ed Cooley had a walk-on on the bench who could have improved our team, but intentionally kept him on the bench because? I'm not sure why, which is why the whole thing is humorous.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 28, 2024 12:38:08 GMT -5
I was curious about how On3 does their valuations, and this is what their website says: That would explain Bronny James' value, as his basketball ability doesn't warrant being one of the top guys. But exposure might.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 27, 2024 15:33:52 GMT -5
I haven't been following high school recruiting as much as I did a few years ago since the portal stuff has been more immediate. Is it correct that we are done with the 2024 class, barring any decommitments from higher ranked players? I know some people thought Hammond would come with Kenny Johnson, but I've seen no buzz about that at all.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 27, 2024 12:57:24 GMT -5
I think there's a bit of galaxy brain thinking going on here - it really looked like Mack held off on his announcement until the Harvard Basketball banquet was over, not for any strategery reasons. If we had a C or PF committed, I'd imagine we'd want it announced as quickly as possible so they are off of the market. Not only that, but for example, if you're bringing in a higher impact guy--let's say Cliff Omoruyi--you'd want that out there so that other people you are recruiting know they'd be joining a better team. Of course, it works both ways. If the staff is telling somebody to hold back, they can similarly tell other recruits that the other guy holding back is in the fold. Either way, I truly hope we make it through Wednesday with no further portal entries from our team, and that soon after we get some good commits. And hopefully Cliff Omoruyi (or similar talent) realizes Georgetown is the place to commit post May 1.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 26, 2024 16:13:01 GMT -5
We can agree to disagree. Structurally, given how the tournament works, the at-large bids and higher seeds, on average, have a higher chance of making the Final Four. That's why higher seeds more often make the Final Four than 11 seeds like NC State. I am not trying to take away from their accomplishment at all, they obviously played well down the stretch and I give all the credit to the coaches and players in achieving that goal. But, this is sort of akin to saying that FDU's strategy for making Round 2 of the tournament should be to win as a 16 seed. Sure, it worked for them one time, but that is obviously not a viable path on a yearly basis. I mean, think about it. Just to get to the NCAA tournament at all, NC State had to win 5 games on consecutive days. That alone is a very tall task for anybody. And not only that, but they had to beat both 4 seed Duke and 1 seed North Carolina to get there. Again, a great accomplishment, but not one that is easy to repeat. Now, if your argument is that you liked the way Keatts constructed his team, that's a different story. But still, Keatts' team essentially missed the NCAA tournament without the ACC unlikely run. Nine times out of 10, my guess is that NC State put in that same exact situation, would fail to make the NCAA tournament at all, foreclosing any chance at the Final Four. That's not a viable path to success. Of course a #11 to #16 will have a tougher path to the FF. Prof’s point is that a team of 9-10 (NCSt=7) upperclass transfers might have a tough early season, gel by Feb/March, and replicate that FF run. I liked that Keatts was given lemons by the new NCAA rules and he made lemonade. Cooley looked like he was given lemons and is still looking for a recipe. I understand the point, and there likely are teams with a lot of upperclassman that have had more success than NC State, that are probably better examples of the point. I just think NC State is a bad example given that they would not have even made the tournament if not for the ACC Tournament run. If "gel by Feb/March, and replicate that FF run" means doing that, then no, I don't think it's easy to replicate that. As far as the lemons/lemonade, I think comparing a year 1 coach inheriting Ewing's mess to Keatts who has been at NC state now for 7 seasons is a pretty poor comparison. And Cooley did use the transfer portal to revamp the Providence roster by bringing in Carter/Hopkins, which partially led to Providence making the NCAA tournament last year and almost making it this year, too. So, in some form, Cooley made similar lemonade before Keatts. Just not at Georgetown yet. I won't argue with you that last year wasn't a disaster. It was a horrible season. Cooley did a poor job. But, it seems pretty clear to me that the staff is strongly trying to reverse that result. If you want to dwell on the poor season, that's fine with me. And as I've said I have concerns about the defense, and Cooley's failure to make it better during the season. But, I choose to be optimistic about next season given the additions so far, the incoming freshman who I really think could have a big impact, and whoever else we land in the portal going forward. With Ewing, there was no reason to think he could do much better since he was a horrible coach, showed no good instincts, and in interviews gave no indication that he even recognized the problem. He also had Ronny Thompson and company running things in the background. With Cooley, his history of better success than we had last year*, his bringing on Kenny Johnson, and the apparent investment in NIL, gives me reason to be optimistic where I wasn't with Ewing. If we repeat another 2-18 season, I'll feel differently. * I know that some have expressed concerns about Cooley. hoyaboya's "one Sweet 16" and all of that. While I have quibbles with that, I think it is fair to some degree. Cooley had a lot of success getting to the tournament at Providence, but less so getting over the hump into higher seeds and deeper runs. My hunch is that is one of the reasons he wanted to come to Georgetown. But, I am not trying to open that debate. Instead, everything about Cooley's history indicates he is a better coach than what we saw last year. He turned around Fairfield, he turned around Providence, and now he's trying to do it at Georgetown. Will he succeed? I have no clue. But the fact is the guy's results in a long career have generally been much better than Georgetown 2023-2024. We aren't debating first round NCAA losses v. Final Fours here. That's an argument where I think real debate can be had. I just think there is little reason to believe that 2024-2025 will replicate this past season aren't very strong until we have good reason to think so. But to be clear, I am with you in saying that 2023-2024 was a disaster on the court, and it better not happen again. And I do hold Cooley responsible for it. I just think he can do a lot better.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 26, 2024 14:54:57 GMT -5
The aberration is that auto-bids into the NCAA tournament rarely make the Final Four. That is unlikely to change going forward. That’s so 2010s. It might be the norm in the second half of the 2020s. We can agree to disagree. Structurally, given how the tournament works, the at-large bids and higher seeds, on average, have a higher chance of making the Final Four. That's why higher seeds more often make the Final Four than 11 seeds like NC State. I am not trying to take away from their accomplishment at all, they obviously played well down the stretch and I give all the credit to the coaches and players in achieving that goal. But, this is sort of akin to saying that FDU's strategy for making Round 2 of the tournament should be to win as a 16 seed. Sure, it worked for them one time, but that is obviously not a viable path on a yearly basis. I mean, think about it. Just to get to the NCAA tournament at all, NC State had to win 5 games on consecutive days. That alone is a very tall task for anybody. And not only that, but they had to beat both 4 seed Duke and 1 seed North Carolina to get there. Again, a great accomplishment, but not one that is easy to repeat. Now, if your argument is that you liked the way Keatts constructed his team, that's a different story. But still, Keatts' team essentially missed the NCAA tournament without the ACC unlikely run. Nine times out of 10, my guess is that NC State put in that same exact situation, would fail to make the NCAA tournament at all, foreclosing any chance at the Final Four. That's not a viable path to success.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 26, 2024 14:20:56 GMT -5
Expect this to settle quickly.... I am not sure college sports survive. There are already 24/25 year old college seniors. If they can’t regulate how long players are eligible then it just becomes a pro league. It’s getting really stupid. I agree generally, but I actually think both Ledlum and Dingle have a decent argument from an equity standpoint. Everyone else in their classes got to play 5 years, but because the Ivy League chose not to play the one COVID season, they did not get to do it. This is actually one of those exceptions where I think the NCAA would be fine in granting it. But yes, the NCAA should be able to regulate these things. If they cannot then why have the NCAA at all?
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 26, 2024 13:56:26 GMT -5
I do not argue with you at all that the approach worked for NC State this past season. BUT, I really don't think that approach is easy to replicate. Keep in mind that NC State was NOT an at large team, and only was in the tournament at all because of their winning the ACC tournament. And then they won a series of games where they weren't the favorite. This would be like saying that Georgetown should have stuck to Ewing's strategy in 2021 because he won the BET. A fluky performance is fun for fans, but it's an outlier. Of course, being in a Final Four gets you a lot of attention and makes it easier to recruit. So let's see if perhaps Keatts can repeat. This will be the reality. When you have 9-10 new upper class transfers it will take a full season to gel as a team and there will be a lot of bid stealing like this year. It’s not an aberration and unless the NCAA selection committee and that human imbecile Dr Charles McClleland are investigated the Big East will continue to get shafted by the ACC, Big Ten, Sec influence of the committee The aberration is that auto-bids into the NCAA tournament rarely make the Final Four. That is unlikely to change going forward.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 26, 2024 13:55:32 GMT -5
I think Kadary Richmond having to leave Seton Hall because of NIL (if that is true) is a great symbol of why NIL and free transfers are destroying college basketball and the things that are good about it. But this take is absurd. If Seton Hall had made the tournament, this would have likely happened anyway. And if Val Ackerman had been a loud mouth, Seton Hall would have still been outside the tournament, and Kadary Richmond would have still transferred. You just like criticizing Ackerman whenever you get the chance, even if it makes absolutely no sense, like now. You need to stop white knighting Val and wake up. This is going to force Shaheen to go elsewhere where they have ab big nil war chest weakening Seton Hall and the Big East. This will also make it harder to get a good TV contract along with the Big East only getting 3 teams in the NCAA tournament. I am not white knighting anybody. You just have an irrational dislike for Ackerman for some bizarre reason. You have made this argument multiple times, and you can never tell me how, AFTER THE NCAA TOURNAMENT STIFFED SETON HALL, Val Ackerman throwing a fit would have helped the immediate situation: 1. The NCAA committee did not pick Seton Hall. 2. Nothing Val Ackerman said after this happened would have changed that 3 Big East teams made the NCAA tournament. So how did Ackerman hurt the Big East or Seton Hall? Should she have had a crystal ball, and assumed this would happen? And how would Ackerman mouthing off had helped get a better TV contract? Or put more money into Seton Hall's NIL coffers? Any damage done to Seton Hall by not being picked by the tournament committee occurred the minute the committee made that decision. There was nothing that could have been done after the fact to put Seton Hall back in. As for the TV contract, Connecticut winning the NCAA tournament will more than counteract any negative from Seton Hall getting stiffed. The Big East has won 4 of the last 10 championships. That should go a long way.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 26, 2024 13:48:56 GMT -5
I do not argue with you at all that the approach worked for NC State this past season. BUT, I really don't think that approach is easy to replicate. Keep in mind that NC State was NOT an at large team, and only was in the tournament at all because of their winning the ACC tournament. And then they won a series of games where they weren't the favorite. This would be like saying that Georgetown should have stuck to Ewing's strategy in 2021 because he won the BET. A fluky performance is fun for fans, but it's an outlier. Of course, being in a Final Four gets you a lot of attention and makes it easier to recruit. So let's see if perhaps Keatts can repeat. You lost me at “Ewing’s strategy.” Poor Keatts, someone comparing him to Ewing… To the extent you meant this tongue in cheek, I'm with you on it.
|
|