2017-2018 Schedule

[hsmith19]

18 minutes ago, wgstl said:

Correct me if im wrong, but wasnt that CBI team full of fr and so?  We have to many legit jr this season to go there this year imo

Bess is the only one who has postseason experience, and he played 7 minutes in the first round. I don't think it matters much who will be returning seniors next year as opposed to Willie and Kwamain only being returning juniors in 2010 (or so we thought). But as far as it goes, Goodwin and French are going to be the most important players going forward and they're both true freshmen.

The point isn't about "something to cheer about." It's about logging more time as a team in a single elimination postseason tournament. But I for one would enjoy showing up and cheering for as many more games in March as possible. They'd be guaranteed a lot more exciting than most of the games in November.

[goonaha]

NIT should the floor for this team. 

[hsmith19]

33 minutes ago, goonaha said:

NIT should the floor for this team. 

Still more evidence to me that people on here are getting way ahead of themselves. It's fun to have a realistic hope of the NCAA or NIT again, but calling it a floor at this point undersells what a remarkable one-year turnaround that would be, even considering the talent on board.

[wgstl]

1 hour ago, hsmith19 said:

Bess is the only one who has postseason experience, and he played 7 minutes in the first round. I don't think it matters much who will be returning seniors next year as opposed to Willie and Kwamain only being returning juniors in 2010 (or so we thought). But as far as it goes, Goodwin and French are going to be the most important players going forward and they're both true freshmen.

The point isn't about "something to cheer about." It's about logging more time as a team in a single elimination postseason tournament. But I for one would enjoy showing up and cheering for as many more games in March as possible. They'd be guaranteed a lot more exciting than most of the games in November.

Which is why NIT is the floor, March Madness is the ceiling, even if its a "really high " ceiling. 

 

if we finish middle of the conference, which I think we should at least, thats NIT...

[goonaha]

33 minutes ago, wgstl said:

Which is why NIT is the floor, March Madness is the ceiling, even if its a "really high " ceiling. 

 

if we finish middle of the conference, which I think we should at least, thats NIT...

This is in line with my thinking.

[hsmith19]

55 minutes ago, wgstl said:

Which is why NIT is the floor, March Madness is the ceiling, even if its a "really high " ceiling. 

 

if we finish middle of the conference, which I think we should at least, thats NIT...

If you look at the middle six teams of the A10 last year, three made the NIT and one more made the CIT. The other two were out of the postseason entirely. Rhode Island was smack dab in the middle at 9-9 and 7th place and did not make the NIT.

It's just not true that middle of the pack in the A10 guarantees an NIT spot, so you need to figure out which you consider our floor.

[Littlebill]

6 minutes ago, hsmith19 said:

If you look at the middle six teams of the A10 last year, three made the NIT and one more made the CIT. The other two were out of the postseason entirely. Rhode Island was smack dab in the middle at 9-9 and 7th place and did not make the NIT.

It's just not true that middle of the pack in the A10 guarantees an NIT spot, so you need to figure out which you consider our floor.

If we finish 7th, this season should be chalked up as a failure. Way too much talent on this team.

[hsmith19]

Just now, Littlebill said:

If we finish 7th, this season should be chalked up as a failure. Way too much talent on this team.

Then you think middle of the pack in the A10 would be failure. Like I said above--you need to pick one or the other. Can't say our floor is middle of the pack and then pretend it guarantees the NIT.

Lest we forget, the 2010 Billikens finished in fourth out of 14 teams in the A10 and still didn't make the NIT.

[Quality Is Job 1]

2 hours ago, hsmith19 said:

Then you think middle of the pack in the A10 would be failure. Like I said above--you need to pick one or the other. Can't say our floor is middle of the pack and then pretend it guarantees the NIT.

Lest we forget, the 2010 Billikens finished in fourth out of 14 teams in the A10 and still didn't make the NIT.

It seems like you're debating with multiple posters holding varying opinions as if they were a single person with a single opinion.

[bauman]

Smith, here's one more to debate with.  You and your NIT buddies are way underestimating this team.  It has no, absolutely NO , connection to the quality of last year's team.  Likely our 6 best players are all new and yes that doesn't mean that Roby, JJ and Bishop won't get meaningful minutes.  As I have been saying for over a week, I see Roby as the leader of this team and because of that he might be a starter, but that doesn't make him better than our 6 new players.  It just makes him, along with JJ and Bishop contributors to an NCAA-bound team. 

Top two, at least, in conference.  Raise your expectations and get on the bandwagon!  This is going to be a fun ride.

[TFord and TRavs]

28 minutes ago, bauman said:

Smith, here's one more to debate with.  You and your NIT buddies are way underestimating this team.  It has no, absolutely NO , connection to the quality of last year's team.  Likely our 6 best players are all new and yes that doesn't mean that Roby, JJ and Bishop won't get meaningful minutes.  As I have been saying for over a week, I see Roby as the leader of this team and because of that he might be a starter, but that doesn't make him better than our 6 new players.  It just makes him, along with JJ and Bishop contributors to an NCAA-bound team. 

Top two, at least, in conference.  Raise your expectations and get on the bandwagon!  This is going to be a fun ride.

I like you 

[Billiken Rich]

If Travis takes this group to the dance he's coach of the year.  Too many questions. Too much needs to go right for a bunch of untested strangers to become a great team.  Any postseason would be great.  The floor is .500.  Delusions of grandeur......

[Old guy]

We will have a better idea of what we can expect next season after the MSG tournament is played.

[brianstl]

1 hour ago, Old guy said:

We will have a better idea of what we can expect next season after the MSG tournament is played.

I think mid January is when we will have a good idea how good this team really is.

[billiken_roy]

8 hours ago, Billiken Rich said:

If Travis takes this group to the dance he's coach of the year.  Too many questions. Too much needs to go right for a bunch of untested strangers to become a great team.  Any postseason would be great.  The floor is .500.  Delusions of grandeur......

i pretty much agree with everything rich is saying.

that said, the fab 5 at michigan got to the championship.   granted we dont have howard, rose and weber on the roster, but still all michigan had all new players and freshmen at that.   kentucky has succeeded as such a number of times now with scum calipari.   but again, nba lottery picks in fold.   

and also keep in mind the transfers had all last year to bond.   they seemed to be very close as they sat at the end of the bench chomping at the bit to do something.   so its not like they are showing up october 15 and introducing themselves for the first time.   

the real question to be answered in my opinion is how good the newby's really are.   sure they are better than what we had on the floor the last three years, but chaminade was better than what we had on the floor the last three years.  so is the upgrade in talent good enough compared to real college teams?   NCAA tourney bound teams.   that is our question mark.   just how good are the newby's.   to reach the levels many are talking about i.e. ncaa tourney, top two in the conference, even nit talk.   they better be a whole lot better than our returning players.    as ive said over and over for the last year.    if our returnees are playing big minutes.   we are in trouble.  they have already proven they are not a 500 team.  so we need a whole new team to succeed at the high level of expectations.   

personally i believe our newbies are that good.   im excited.  

 

[Pistol]

27 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

i pretty much agree with everything rich is saying.

that said, the fab 5 at michigan got to the championship.   granted we dont have howard, rose and weber on the roster, but still all michigan had all new players and freshmen at that.   kentucky has succeeded as such a number of times now with scum calipari.   but again, nba lottery picks in fold.   

and also keep in mind the transfers had all last year to bond.   they seemed to be very close as they sat at the end of the bench chomping at the bit to do something.   so its not like they are showing up october 15 and introducing themselves for the first time.   

the real question to be answered in my opinion is how good the newby's really are.   sure they are better than what we had on the floor the last three years, but chaminade was better than what we had on the floor the last three years.  so is the upgrade in talent good enough compared to real college teams?   NCAA tourney bound teams.   that is our question mark.   just how good are the newby's.   to reach the levels many are talking about i.e. ncaa tourney, top two in the conference, even nit talk.   they better be a whole lot better than our returning players.    as ive said over and over for the last year.    if our returnees are playing big minutes.   we are in trouble.  they have already proven they are not a 500 team.  so we need a whole new team to succeed at the high level of expectations.   

personally i believe our newbies are that good.   im excited.  

It's not just about the internal question marks, though. The A10 is WIDE OPEN this year. Everyone has question marks, everyone at the top has had some departures, and no one is the clear dominant team. I guess you'd call Rhode Island the favorite, and most would've probably put VCU, Dayton, and Bonaventure behind them, but two of those three have had coaching changes and significant transfers/decommitments, and Bonaventure is relying heavily on starting guards and not a whole lot else. Somebody like Richmond or Davidson will outperform expectations a bit, but there's no reason we can't make serious noise in the conference.

I share your optimism about our newcomers; I think they're better than most outsiders realize, and I'm getting a good vibe from this particular collection of players and coaches. I think they'll jell faster than a lot of newly overhauled rosters do. There will be some bumps but if we stay healthy, I wouldn't want to see us in March.

We don't have to be one of the most talented teams in the country, we just have to be one of the best 2 or 3 teams in a down, vulnerable, totally open league.

[ACE]

1 hour ago, billiken_roy said:

i pretty much agree with everything rich is saying.

that said, the fab 5 at michigan got to the championship.   granted we dont have howard, rose and weber on the roster, but still all michigan had all new players and freshmen at that.   kentucky has succeeded as such a number of times now with scum calipari.   but again, nba lottery picks in fold.   

and also keep in mind the transfers had all last year to bond.   they seemed to be very close as they sat at the end of the bench chomping at the bit to do something.   so its not like they are showing up october 15 and introducing themselves for the first time.   

the real question to be answered in my opinion is how good the newby's really are.   sure they are better than what we had on the floor the last three years, but chaminade was better than what we had on the floor the last three years.  so is the upgrade in talent good enough compared to real college teams?   NCAA tourney bound teams.   that is our question mark.   just how good are the newby's.   to reach the levels many are talking about i.e. ncaa tourney, top two in the conference, even nit talk.   they better be a whole lot better than our returning players.    as ive said over and over for the last year.    if our returnees are playing big minutes.   we are in trouble.  they have already proven they are not a 500 team.  so we need a whole new team to succeed at the high level of expectations.   

personally i believe our newbies are that good.   im excited.  

 

Doesn't your conclusion that you believe our newbies can "succeed at the high level of expectations" contradict what Rich is saying?

[RUBillsFan]

I'm super excited about the upcoming season.  The turnaround under Ford has been spectacular and I think we will potentially have one of the most talented rosters perhaps in Billiken history if you're factoring in depth as well (note: talent doesn't necessarily mean results).

That being said I think saying you'll be disappointed with no NCAA tournament appearance this year is nuts.

The Wiz has been saying all off season that even teams that replace a large chunk of their roster have a max improvement of 2 letter grades which if I recall correctly would put us in B range or just outside the NCAA tournament.   That is the max improvement.  The Billikens would need to have one of the biggest improvements ever in NCAA history year over year to make the NCAA field.

And I don't want to sound like a Debbie downer, but there are reasons to temper expectations on all of returning players and newcomers as well:

• Returnees - all played of an pretty awful Billiken team, can they contribute to a winner?
• Goodwin - consensus seems to be 50 - 60 ranked recruit. 
  • here are some other recent 50 - 60 recruits freshman years (I'll limit it to guards for comparison, rankings from 247sports.com):
    • 2016
      • 56 - Brandon Robinson (UNC) - averaged 1.9 ppg and shot 34% from the field for NCAA champ
      • 57 - DeJon Jarreau (UMass) - averaged 9.8 ppg, shot 44% from field and 24% from 3pt for awful 12th place A-10 team
    • 2015
      • 51 - Justin Simon (Arizona) - averaged 2.3 ppg for 3rd palce PAC-12 (6th seed in NCAA tournament).
      • 60 - Prince Ali (UCLA) - averaged 3.9 ppg, 38% from field for 10 place PAC-12 team.
  • Granted I'm cherry picking a bit here, but unless the freshman is a consensus top 10 or 20 prospect, it is often foolish to count on them to be a major contributor to an NCAA tournament team right away.  SLU fans who will be disappointed if Goodwin isn't the 2nd coming of Larry Hughes are jerks.
• French - ditto for Goodwin, but French was even lower on the lists.
• Bess - just look at his stats from his Michigan State career, there is not a lot to get excited about
• Henriquez - he put up pretty good numbers (not eye popping), but his UCF teams finished 9th and 8th in the AAC.
• Foreman - again decent numbers again not eye popping for awful Rutgers teams (14th in Big Ten both years)
• Graves - put up mediocre numbers in a couple of handfuls of games for BC against a pretty bad non-conference schedule.  Will only play 1/2 season and is still basically a freshman.
• Anthony - I don't think anyone expects much, his numbers at Seton Hall weren't good.

There is also the fact that these guys will be playing live NCAA games together for the first team and there may be some adjustment period as the team "gels".

I think there are also big time reasons to be excited.  

• Returnees - all play better w another year of experience, better players around them, and a winning team to play for
• Goodwin - has seemingly been underrated as a prospect his whole career and will be playing with a chip on his (fully-healed) shoulder for his hometown team.
• French - look at the highlight videos, the dude is a monster who dunks everything, he was rising in the rankings toward them end
• Bess - injuries played a part in his bad numbers and he had to do it against very tough Big Ten competition for a team with a lot of other options
• Henriquez - he'll have a better supporting cast
• Foreman - better supporting cast, weaker competition on A10 versus Big Ten
• Graves - was just showing tip of iceberg in terms of talent at BC & wasn't happy / never got going
• Anthony - he's just a backup piece / has promise now that he's out of Angel Delgado's shadow

Ford showed last season that maybe he is more than just a recruiter and maybe isn't as awful of a coach as Okie State fans would have you think.

I'm excited to see how it plays out.

[billiken_roy]

15 minutes ago, ACE said:

Doesn't your conclusion that you believe our newbies can "succeed at the high level of expectations" contradict what Rich is saying?

ace i think rich is cautious because of chemistry more than talent.   i say i believe chemistry opportunity had the time to develop last year when they all redshirted but lived and practiced together.   so my question is talent over chemistry.    that is what i believe would keep us from fulfilling the high expectations if there is a fail.   we would have over estimated the actual ability of the newbies.   and i believe the validation of that talent in the early going (or at least the signal of such) will be the amount of PT everyone is afforded and who is playing ahead of who.    

[hsmith19]

15 hours ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

It seems like you're debating with multiple posters holding varying opinions as if they were a single person with a single opinion.

Not at all. As I said, Littlebill is admitting he would consider middle of the pack failure. Goonaha and WG, on the other hand, considered middle of the pack the "floor" and were also pretending that floor would guarantee an NIT spot. Those two were the ones I was debating.

I have no disagreement with Littlebill other than I think he has slightly overinflated expectations. My point with the other two is that middle of the pack in the A10 has never guaranteed an NIT spot, either last year or in recent SLU history.

[hsmith19]

12 hours ago, bauman said:

Smith, here's one more to debate with.  You and your NIT buddies are way underestimating this team.  It has no, absolutely NO , connection to the quality of last year's team.  Likely our 6 best players are all new and yes that doesn't mean that Roby, JJ and Bishop won't get meaningful minutes.  As I have been saying for over a week, I see Roby as the leader of this team and because of that he might be a starter, but that doesn't make him better than our 6 new players.  It just makes him, along with JJ and Bishop contributors to an NCAA-bound team. 

Top two, at least, in conference.  Raise your expectations and get on the bandwagon!  This is going to be a fun ride.

The main reason I think NIT would be a success rather than "the floor" is not because last year's team was terrible. It's because this team has never played in competitive games together or under this coach before.

[Cowboy]

1 hour ago, RUBillsFan said:

I'm super excited about the upcoming season.  The turnaround under Ford has been spectacular and I think we will potentially have one of the most talented rosters perhaps in Billiken history if you're factoring in depth as well (note: talent doesn't necessarily mean results).

That being said I think saying you'll be disappointed with no NCAA tournament appearance this year is nuts.

The Wiz has been saying all off season that even teams that replace a large chunk of their roster have a max improvement of 2 letter grades which if I recall correctly would put us in B range or just outside the NCAA tournament.   That is the max improvement.  The Billikens would need to have one of the biggest improvements ever in NCAA history year over year to make the NCAA field.

And I don't want to sound like a Debbie downer, but there are reasons to temper expectations on all of returning players and newcomers as well:

• Returnees - all played of an pretty awful Billiken team, can they contribute to a winner?
• Goodwin - consensus seems to be 50 - 60 ranked recruit. 
  • here are some other recent 50 - 60 recruits freshman years (I'll limit it to guards for comparison, rankings from 247sports.com):
    • 2016
      • 56 - Brandon Robinson (UNC) - averaged 1.9 ppg and shot 34% from the field for NCAA champ
      • 57 - DeJon Jarreau (UMass) - averaged 9.8 ppg, shot 44% from field and 24% from 3pt for awful 12th place A-10 team
    • 2015
      • 51 - Justin Simon (Arizona) - averaged 2.3 ppg for 3rd palce PAC-12 (6th seed in NCAA tournament).
      • 60 - Prince Ali (UCLA) - averaged 3.9 ppg, 38% from field for 10 place PAC-12 team.
  • Granted I'm cherry picking a bit here, but unless the freshman is a consensus top 10 or 20 prospect, it is often foolish to count on them to be a major contributor to an NCAA tournament team right away.  SLU fans who will be disappointed if Goodwin isn't the 2nd coming of Larry Hughes are jerks.
• French - ditto for Goodwin, but French was even lower on the lists.
• Bess - just look at his stats from his Michigan State career, there is not a lot to get excited about
• Henriquez - he put up pretty good numbers (not eye popping), but his UCF teams finished 9th and 8th in the AAC.
• Foreman - again decent numbers again not eye popping for awful Rutgers teams (14th in Big Ten both years)
• Graves - put up mediocre numbers in a couple of handfuls of games for BC against a pretty bad non-conference schedule.  Will only play 1/2 season and is still basically a freshman.
• Anthony - I don't think anyone expects much, his numbers at Seton Hall weren't good.

There is also the fact that these guys will be playing live NCAA games together for the first team and there may be some adjustment period as the team "gels".

I think there are also big time reasons to be excited.  

• Returnees - all play better w another year of experience, better players around them, and a winning team to play for
• Goodwin - has seemingly been underrated as a prospect his whole career and will be playing with a chip on his (fully-healed) shoulder for his hometown team.
• French - look at the highlight videos, the dude is a monster who dunks everything, he was rising in the rankings toward them end
• Bess - injuries played a part in his bad numbers and he had to do it against very tough Big Ten competition for a team with a lot of other options
• Henriquez - he'll have a better supporting cast
• Foreman - better supporting cast, weaker competition on A10 versus Big Ten
• Graves - was just showing tip of iceberg in terms of talent at BC & wasn't happy / never got going
• Anthony - he's just a backup piece / has promise now that he's out of Angel Delgado's shadow

Ford showed last season that maybe he is more than just a recruiter and maybe isn't as awful of a coach as Okie State fans would have you think.

I'm excited to see how it plays out.

-great post, the yin and the yang

-and just a reminder..........It is very hard work being a Billiken fan.

[brianstl]

26 minutes ago, hsmith19 said:

The main reason I think NIT would be a success rather than "the floor" is not because last year's team was terrible. It's because this team has never played in competitive games together or under this coach before.

I am with you on the NIT being a success rather than the floor.  I think the schedule at first glance is better than last season's, but not great.  There is little margin for error in the non conference season.  A couple bad losses in the early going while the team jells and waits on Graves could really do lasting damage to our profile.  

[CBFan]

I agree with the wiz, so getting to a "B" grade will be a successful season and anything better is just icing on the cake.

I am greedy however and would really like the extra credit of getting to the post season.

I am very excited about the upcoming season.

[Old guy]

With all due respect to the Wiz, whose opinion I regard highly, it is not right to interpret statistical pronouncements as being inflexibly correct in what they say. For example, the 2 letter variation as the max up or down shift you may see in a team's performance from a season to the next season is both correct in general terms (it represents 2 standard deviations or 95% of all possible outcomes for the new year) and also incorrect in specific terms, ie. regarding a single team. 

Let's take the Bills, last season we ended with a ranking of D, of course that means that this particular team would have a very hard time going down by two letters because there is not enough space below the D rating to go down 2 letters. So the Bills have less than the 2 full letter potential for going down below last year's ranking. On the other hand there is plenty of room above us to move into. If we want to deal with a space of possible outcomes for the Bills encompassing 2 standard deviations on each side of the median, and we start at D, there should be the space of a single letter below us but above us there would be an area of 3 letters (standard deviations, one in the negative side of the median and 2 int he positive side). All together this is the full 95% of all possible outcomes available to the Bills. We can go down to F or up to A. Yes, I am aware it gets more complex than that when you add the + and - to the letters like in F- or F+. However we are talking about the area where 95% of the possible outcomes will fall, and starting from a D, this stretches out  to an A. 

If we had started from a C the total possible outcomes would go from an F to an A. 

So, you may think that this is an atrociously broad band of possibilities, but hey what do you want, we are talking about 95% of all possible outcomes. I think the vast majority of these possible outcomes for the Bills are above the level where we ended the last season. Explaining this in a different way, the real determinant of the range of outcomes available to a team in a given season is largely dependent upon the level they start the season at, not the level they ended the prior season at.

From that point of view we do not know how well we will start this season we but have every right to expect it will be at a much improved level over last season. Let's give it some time and see what happens. 

I know this post will be put down by others, possibly including the Wiz, but again what is life without some degree contrarian opinion here and there..