|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 25, 2024 16:54:17 GMT -5
Name a Big East coach that has coached at 3 separate schools in 5 years. Is five years your only standard for loyalty 2003? In all seriousness, this issue of loyalty extends to the coaching staff(s) as well. Remember Malcom & Tim? My comment was that players no longer have loyalty. This discussion was about players, not coaches. The two situations aren't analagous. Currently, players literally have nothing tying them to a university. They can leave on a whim. Coaches do not have that luxury. They sign contracts (and yes, many paid handsomely). When they underperform, they are fired. And yes, when they do really well at lower-level programs, they often move to better programs. Just as players now transfer to better schools. I do not blame them at all for that. The problem in your reasoning is that you are viewing my statement that players have no loyalty to universities as a pejorative or negative. I don't blame players or coaches for seeking out better opportunties or more money if they can get it. All the more power to them, they are operating within the system they have. That said, for the most part, most of the Big East coaches have been at jobs for a long time. And some of them ended their tenures because they were either fired or run off because of dissatisfacton (like Shaka Smart). Rick Pitino was at Louisville for 16 seasons before getting fired. Sure, he was only at Iona for three seasons, but everybody knew going in he was using it as a stepping stone, including Iona. Ed Cooley was at Providence for 12 years before leaving despite other offers to go elsewhere. Greg McDermott has been at Creighton for 14 seasons. Even Hurley has now been at Connecticut for 6 years, and Rhode Island before that for 6 years. And Shaka Smart stayed at both VCU and Texas for 6 seasons. Sean Miller was at Arizona 12 years before being dismissed. And on the bookends he was at Xavier 5 years, and now two more. Matta was at Ohio State for thirteen years before being forced out. If you want to compare the two, go ahead. But it's not proving the point you think it's proving. And there are few examples of coaches jumping from school to school like these guys in the portal are for one big reason--they are bound by contracts, and any coach who jumped around that much would be seen as unsteady. (As far as Ighoefe, I said at the time I thought it was bad form. On Wilson, Ewing basically ran him off into a "manager" until a scholarship opened up. I thought that was horrible and said so at the time. Then he graduated. We have no idea if Cooley wanted to retain him, but he had graduated and was a 4 year player. I certainly consider him loyal, and had he wanted to stay for this year, I would have welcomed him. We certainly had enough roster spots.)
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 25, 2024 16:29:23 GMT -5
Players also have little loyalty to a university or coach anymore. After his entry into the portal, Kadary Richmond will now be on his third school. With Posh Alexander's entry into the portal, he'll now be onto his third school. To be fair they are 5th year players (and this will not exist after this year when that last class of COVID-extra eligibilty guys is complete), but still the fact that this is now commonplace is telling. Every coach in the BE has coached at multiple stops but it's the players who don't have any loyalty? Name a Big East coach that has coached at 3 separate schools in 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 25, 2024 16:06:57 GMT -5
Players also have little loyalty to a university or coach anymore. After his entry into the portal, Kadary Richmond will now be on his third school. With Posh Alexander's entry into the portal, he'll now be onto his third school. To be fair they are 5th year players (and this will not exist after this year when that last class of COVID-extra eligibilty guys is complete), but still the fact that this is now commonplace is telling.
People complain about guys from our 2-19 roster leaving because they were supposed to be part of some "core" that led one of the worst Georgetown teams ever, yet at the same time high level guys like Richmond and Alexander--neither of whom has to worry about playing time--leave anyway.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 25, 2024 15:56:09 GMT -5
Are Seton Hall and Butler boards blowing up at their coaches losing parts of their core?
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 25, 2024 15:54:43 GMT -5
I m also hearing that its not his choice. That sucks. If you want to leave for more money or playing time that's one thing, but I hate the idea of chasing someone off. It might be an old fashion concept in a a NIL world, but if a program commits to a kid there should be a spot for them. If performance declines then you aren't obligated to keep the NIL the same, but there should be a spot for those that want to be Hoyas and we brought to the team. In this new world there are no Tyler Crawfords, Tyler Adams, or Henry Sims. I want to be competitive but what's the point of cheering for a one year rental with no ties to the school? I've been a long term supporter of our program, but I don't know if I can cheer with the same enthusiasm because someone took a jersey out of the laundry and handed it to a kid for 9 months. See my post above. I don't buy this. PS. Lots of posters "hear things." One of the few people who I trust to actually have some inside insights, blueandgray, posted this a while ago, "I believe Rowan saw the writing on the wall….and yes, we did lallow him to walk." This makes me think that while the program would have loved to have him, we let him go because of recruiting Mack/not meeting NIL demands. But I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 25, 2024 15:45:37 GMT -5
Of course it is his choice. He is a duly enrolled student and Ed Cooley can't kick him out of school. Too many athletes lose sight of the fact that once they are in, they can finish their college education without any obligation from a coach. And like (almost) all his teammates, he's not playing in the NBA. The long term educational and networking opportunities of Georgetown far outweigh an annual trip to the transfer portal. But, he cant play basketball and thats obviously what he wants to do. That doesn't mean he has no choice to stay. It just means he has a choice he dislikes more than the other options he figures will be on the table. But he's got a choice. There is no right to play basketball. I also don't buy that it's "not his choice" for an additional reason. Putting aside chemistry/personality issues that we have little insight into, why wouldn't want Cooley want somebody like Brumbaugh on the bench? Heck, if this was 2015, and Cooley landed someone like Mack, that's in all likelihood what would have happened. I'd certainly love to have Brumbaugh backing up Mack. But the reality is that in 2024, guys who have skills can get NIL money and more playing time by moving, and that's what most of these kids want. And in Styles' case, unofficial reports seem to indicate Styles' choice was based on NC State offering more money. I am pretty confident Styles would have gotten the playing time he wanted at Georgetown. Did Brumbaugh have the choice to stay at whatever amount of NIL Cooley was comfortable with offering, and with playing time limited by the addition of Malik Mack? Likely. I just think in 2024, guys like Brumbaugh do not view that as a viable option, even though it very much is an option if you don't put all your priorities on playing 30+ minutes and getting a ton of NIL. Now, if somebody actually has inside information and tells me that Georgetown offered him 0 NIL or something like that, we might have a different discussion. But, otherwise, I don't buy it.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 25, 2024 9:19:19 GMT -5
So as of right now (4/25/24, 10:15am) how many players do we have on our roster next year? Definitely: Jayden Epps Drew Fielder Malik Mack Drew McKenna Kayvaun Mulready Micah Peavy Thomas Sorber Caleb Williams Curtis Williams Maybe: Ryan Mutombo So that's either 9 or 10 scholarship players. So 3-4 slots still open. Almost certainly one of those will be a big.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 25, 2024 9:09:43 GMT -5
With the caveat that I wanted to retain Brumbaugh and Cook, there is really little harm in losing part of a core that went 2-18, especially Cook considering that his defense was a major reason why we stunk last year. Now, if the freshman like Sorber and Mulready turn out to be good, and they leave, that would be a very different conversation.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 25, 2024 9:04:49 GMT -5
Bottom line is that with Supreme Cook as our center, our defense at the rim was 362nd of 362 teams in Division. That is really bad. Almost anybody will be an improvement over that because you literally cannot get worse than 362nd out of 362. As I've said, I really like him, and I wish it worked out where he could have stayed, but with the reality of college basketball in 2024, that was unrealistic if Cooley went out and recruited over him--which Cooley had to do if he wanted a better team next year.
It's the off season, and so of course, we are going to discuss things like retention, etc. And like I said, in principle, I do want to retain our guys and we really do need to retain this incoming class. But, if next year the team is substantially better because of the incoming freshman and whoever we get in the portal, at this time next year, few people will care about the fact that Brumbaugh and Cook transferred.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 24, 2024 15:40:51 GMT -5
If this is true, transfers like Akok Akok's, which came in the summer, are no longer permitted.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 24, 2024 15:38:19 GMT -5
More than a few will say it's due to Marquette winning, as opposed to their staff prioritizing the players in the program. Time will tell. Also, exception that proves the rule. Did anyone expect Marquette to have no one in the portal? Exactly. Excluding us and Marquette, there are 9 other Big East teams, 8 of which were better than us, all of whom have had at least one transfer (I think that is right, but tell me if otherwise). It's silly to point to one or two teams with good retention when virtually every other team in high major basketball has had some amount of turnover (and much more than when the transfer rules were much more restrictive). Last year, you could say "Well, Duke has nobody in the portal." This year, they have what, 7 players in the portal. Did Scheyer go from a great coach at retaining players to a horrible one in a single season? Doubtful. What will be interesting long-term is what coaches on average retain more players. What happens to one team in one particular year is not very telling.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 24, 2024 14:32:33 GMT -5
Was there not a collective agreement among the Ivies to not go that route? I guess I am asking if there was a Gentlemen’s Agreement that prevents Harvard from paying players like that. Maybe -- I don't know. I just think that of all the schools, the Ivies could do that. As for the broader discussion, I see both sides. Players deserve to be paid, and they shouldn't be restricted for no benefit. But it's going to kill college basketball. What's fair isn't always what is best across a broader spectrum. Like I said earlier, I hope we see multi-year deals sooner rather than later. Enforceable, multi-year deals are really the only way out of this. Or collective bargaining, which would impose rules regarding movement, etc. In some ways, the NIL free for all is harmful to players, as there are TONS of guys hitting the market every year, and they all want money. If things were staggered, and the supply of available players was smaller, I bet the NIL deals would get bigger, not smaller, because there would be few areas to spend. The issue with NIL is that it's new at the moment, and it's unclear when/if there will be a peak to the amount of NIL available. It's all new now, and a lot of donors are throwing money around. Things will change (a little) once donors see their money being thrown at players who underperform. You are going to have NIL donors who are dissatisfied causing coaching changes, etc. I am sure this is already happening. Being a college basketball (or football) coach right now has to be horrendous from the recruiting perspective. I don't feel bad for them (at least at high major schools) since they make a lot of money. I do feel bad for the mid major type coaches who often do not make a ton of money relative to the amount of work they put it. And they really stand no chance at player retention going forward.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 24, 2024 14:25:46 GMT -5
Can't say that I love this. Cook had his warts, but he worked his @ss off every game, with basically no one to back him up. I gotta assume that the staff has told him that his role would be greatly diminished next season--and I guess that this is the right move for everyone. But I had really hoped that the days of yearly complete roster overhauls were done--yes some players would go in and out, but Cooley would bring stability. Maybe that will still happen starting with this freshmen class, but then again maybe roster stability is impossible in the NIL and free transfers era. Sigh. Some good news about bigs transferring in would soften the blow. I really think this is mixed. I think some level of roster upheaval is going to happen going forward no matter what. It stinks, but until the current NIL/transfer rules change, this will happen every year. Even some programs who have had a lot more success than ours have been killed by waves of transfers this season, like Duke. That said, I do think that once Cooley gets guys in that he recruited from high school and transfers who stick around a bit longer, that retention will be better. And if we win, retention will be better. Winning solves a lot of ills, but not all, as illustrated by all of the successful teams losing tons of players. At best, I think we will get to a point of equilibrium where most rosters lose 3-4 players a year, with variation in both directions depending on the makeup of teams, incoming freshman, and NIL deals. Bad teams, like ours this past year, will almost always see turnover like this, though. The COVID guys having their 5th year to play, like Cook, will be mostly done after this upcoming season too, which may help a bit as the overall talent pool shrinks a bit. The days of mostly-stable rosters are over. Think about this. As recently as 2017-2018, when Ewing came in, the only transfer was Agau. In today's environment, that would be unthinkable. The main thing holding guys in place was a desire NOT to sit out for a year to play. With that gone, and the enticement of money to transfer, things will remain unstable. At some point, something will need to be done about this because it's not good for anybody involved long term, including the players.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 24, 2024 14:21:13 GMT -5
This is not surprising at all, and expected. Like others, I loved that Supreme Cook fought endlessly and always gave an A+ on effort. And he really surprised me and expanded his offensive game as time went by. The problem is that he was abysmal on defense, and was the main reason why our at-rim defense was last in the country in all of Division 1. And this just isn't about stats alone, the eye test showed it too. When Cook played, help defense was non-existent. This type of defense just isn't a feasible way forward.
For us to be a better team, Cook needed to be replaced. And so this is one of those situations where you are sad to see him go, but it's also a reality of winning that if we want to improve our team significantly, he was either going to have to be comfortable playing minimal minutes, or transfer. I do not blame him at all for choosing the latter. And given the dearth of bigs, he might even be able to get some decent NIL money out of it too.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 24, 2024 12:52:22 GMT -5
A few things: 1. There are multiple reports Georgetown is willing to spend big on NIL, but none of us know how much. Nor do we know if it is tied to specific players or if there is a "bank" of sorts for Cooley and the university to use any way they wish. Very few donors just splash money around without wanting to have influence or say in how it is used. 2. There are reports that we are the highest NIL bid Omoruyi has, but he wants more. Omoruyi is a very good player who would greatly help our team, but he also isn't the level of Hunter Dickenson, for example. Point being--can we "overpay" for guys to compensate for our recent poor history? Yes. But only so much. Would Cliff Omoruyi come if we threw $2 million at him? Maybe. But that would be silly because he's not worth that much and he has only one year left. This is so key. Let’s not overpay someone just for the satisfaction of checking off a box, especially if the player is not worth such a financial commitment. And guaranteed, if Cooley and the administration threw money around and overpaid players who turned out not to be worth the money we paid them (NIL is not public but if we drastically overpaid someone it would get out), the same poster would criticize Cooley and company for horrible decision-making and recruiting, while simultaneously pointing out Cooley's salary and that he has only been to one Sweet 16. It is set up as a no-win situation.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 24, 2024 11:42:26 GMT -5
No, NIL chest, no matter how big, can make 7 foot capable basketball players grown on trees. There are only a handful of such guys at any given time in college. St. John’s just got one. Xavier is recruiting one from UC-Irvine. We just had one on campus for a multi-day visit with a huge NIL bag at our disposal. Why wouldn’t we be able to land him? Saying he’s asking for too much money seems like a pretty poor excuse when for a year we’ve been told we have huge NIL resources. A few things: 1. There are multiple reports Georgetown is willing to spend big on NIL, but none of us know how much. Nor do we know if it is tied to specific players or if there is a "bank" of sorts for Cooley and the university to use any way they wish. Very few donors just splash money around without wanting to have influence or say in how it is used. 2. There are reports that we are the highest NIL bid Omoruyi has, but he wants more. Omoruyi is a very good player who would greatly help our team, but he also isn't the level of Hunter Dickenson, for example. Point being--can we "overpay" for guys to compensate for our recent poor history? Yes. But only so much. Would Cliff Omoruyi come if we threw $2 million at him? Maybe. But that would be silly because he's not worth that much and he has only one year left. It is important to remember that even in situations where players want NIL money, it is not the only factor. And if Omoruyi's NIL offer from Georgetown is the highest, and he wants to try to bid himself up, he has that choice. Whether it's smart is a whole other question. If he does this, I think there's some chance nobody else outbids Georgetown and he ends up getting less to go somewhere else, if we have moved on to someone else by that point. 3. Minor point, but most sites and rosters have Omoruyi at 6'11, so technically he isn't a seven footer. 4. There are reports we have been connected to Kentucky transfer Ugonna Onyenso, who is a 7 footer. 5. The window for entering the portal ends May 1, but players have plenty of time to do visits and make commitments. Our roster isn't complete.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 24, 2024 11:33:24 GMT -5
Understand - but it seems that every game I have seen the last few years, the teams with mobile bigs have overwhelmed us in every which way. We should at least try to counterbalance in some way. Just saying. The bolded part is key. Big, mobile bigs. If Ryan Mutombo was as mobile as someone like Edey, we would have been set, except he isn't. I would love to have a big, mobile center who is 7'. Realistically, though, there are a handful of those guys out there, and the odds of getting them are pretty low. I really feel like people focus too much on 7 footers anyway. Sure, if all else is equal, give me the height. If Roy Hibbert grew on tree, I would want one every year (good example of a big who would still be great in college, but whose NBA prospects would be more limited now than 15 years ago). But especially in the college game, I would take an athletic, high IQ, skilled center who is 6'9 or 6'10 any day over a 7 footer who isn't mobile and without skill. Other than Hibbert, the best big we have had in the last 20 years is Greg Monroe, who was 6'10/6/11. I know he gets a lot of hate on here because of his academic ineligibility and weight, but Josh Smith was an effective offensive player in scoring and he was 6'10--granted his huge size helped him a lot on that too. And he was 6'10. We need a very good defensive big who can also be serviceable on offense to supplement Sober and Fielder. Do we realistically have a shot at the Kentucky guy who entered the portal recently? That would obviously fit the 7 footer category. But absent him, I don't think there are many 7 footers out there, so we need to just go for the biggest, most skilled guy we can get.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 24, 2024 9:26:41 GMT -5
It's amazing to me we can't sign a veteran rim protector (7' or taller). This individual would surely get some significant playing time and great exposure in the Big East. I didn't follow Providence under Cooley, but did Cooley ever have a starting 7' C there? Admittedly, I looked extremely quickly, but the only 7'0 player Providence had during Cooley's tenure was Carson Desrosiers (transfer from Wake Forest after his sophomore year there), who logged minutes in the 2013-2014, and 2014-2015 seasons. He did start almost every game in the 2014-2015 season, and he played almost every game the season before. But that's it. (It's possible I missed a walk on or someone who didn't play much.) Even in absolute numbers, the number of 7'0 tall players is extremely small, and even smaller when you account for guys who actually have good basketball skills. Edit: Coooley did have Paschal Chukwu, too, but he barely played.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 23, 2024 22:25:45 GMT -5
My understanding is different. Fielder had knee tendenitus issues stemming from high school. He was limited last summer. His play early in the season was impacted by his knees. By the end of the season, Fielder’s knees were feeling better and he looked faster and more mobile and received more minutes. This is correct. S and C staff focused on building strength and rehabbing for months. Paid dividends as season went on. Good to know. To me the timing is just unclear. For example, in his last five games, Fielder did play more--17 minutes, 20, 24, 7, and 18. But there were some stretches in the season, like late January/early February where Fielder did not play much and Massoud did despite Fielder outplaying Massoud when they did play. So, either Cooley was playing Massoud on purpose over Fielder then, or his knees were the reason? To be clear, there was a stretch from January 27 to February 24, where Fielder's minutes played were very low--5, 18, 3, 13, 10, 8, 13, 8. In contrast, for those same games, Massoud's minutes were 34, 34, 19, 13, 12, 4, 21, 20. I would prefer to think the latter, because if Fielder was fully healthy in that period, and Cooley was playing Massoud anyway, it would make me sincerely question that decision-making. By January 27, it was pretty evident Massoud was a bust, and Fielder was a better player.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 23, 2024 17:04:04 GMT -5
On the Fielder v. Massoud point--it also befuddled me that Massoud was playing so much over Fielder toward the end of the season. But, then I heard from multiple sources that he had a knee injury, and Cooley eventually mentioned it in either press availability or press conference. That makes Cooley's decision more sensible.
Also, Fielder tended to foul a lot (6.2 fouls per 40 minutes), which was another reason he saw the bench more than we would have liked. But, I think the knee injury was a bigger deal than anybody realized at the time. (Another good reminder that when things are unfolding in real time we don't always have all of the facts.)
|
|