ACE

Goodwin was a +32, not too shabby! He was one rebound away from a double/double.

Good question - kinda like the ineligible players it seems.

Here are some observations from just one game. There is no way we win a game like that by that margin last year. We would had have runs in games like that and then go cold. It looks like we have the horses now to keep running and keep attacking. We absolutely killed them on the boards. We should be a better rebounding team. Robbie is in better shape. We are a very big team, I'm not talking about in the traditional sense with a big frontline, but when Green is out of the game, we are very big at guard and wing. There was a lineup where Jones was the shortest player on the floor. A lot of good wingspans. The defense concerned me after the first 10 minutes, but then we got in the flow of the game and started imposing our will. I'm gonna love Dion Brown - a real bulldog. We really missed a player like that last year. He plays much bigger than his size. We were terrible at generating turnovers last year, but should be much better this year with our length and athleticism. It was nice to have a big like Otieno knock down some free throws. It was such a cluster with Anya last year. I know it won't be as easy against better opponents, but man do we have several guys who can get out in the open floor and attack the rim. Also, I loved the play where Brown went high to grab a defensive rebounding, immediately started sprinting the other way and found Sharma on the wing for a 3. The passing and 3-point shooting should improve as the team gains familiarity. There were several good passes that a teammate wasn't expecting. Especially from Robbie, i think guys will be more ready to receive some of those passes. Turnovers remain a concern and while I think the defense should be much better this year, I want to see how we do against better opponents. As good as the offense figures to be, we're gonna need the defense to help win games on nights when the shots aren't falling. Finally, in the postgame, I've never heard Schertz so free and easy and giddy after a victory. He had his share of coach speak, talking about the things they need to work on like passing and turnovers, but you can tell he is excited about the potential of this group... and so am I.

Nepo baby

It is - usually gonna be a one bid league too. I’ve been beating the drum about the extinction of “mid majors.” It’s a term in danger of becoming obsolete. There’s a reason Memphis has desperately trying to buy there way into any multi bid P6 league that would take them.

Yep, agreed. I think players 5-9 could really vary from game to game based on match-ups and riding the hot hand. I'm projecting minutes per game. I could see certain games where Sharma or Dunlap catch fire and get more minutes than usual.

With a few couple of exhibition games in the books, numerous Schertz interviews and practice reports, plus Anya redshirting, this is now my revised final best guess on minutes played before the start of the season... 1_ Green 2. Robbie 3. Jones 4. Otieno 5. Thames 6. Brown 7. McCottry 8. Dunlap 9. Sharma 10. Kerr

My guess: Robbie, Otieno, Green, Jones... the only one that is a little uncertain for me is Thames or Brown.

Bradley leading Bonnie 50-49 with about 10 minutes to go.

Yeah, but your categorization was dead wrong. Go back to your manual and try again.

Wrong - they’re more like overly sensitive, pitchfork carrying maga types trying to silence any criticism- that much is certain.

While not perfect, this change will increase at large opportunities. It will make it more difficult for mid majors with Top 40 NETs to be left out of the Dance, and that's at least some progress. This won't solve all the problems facing mid majors, but I thought this was the most realistic pathway to some improvement and will save mid majors from complete extinction for now. I have advocated that mid majors (non P6 schools who are committed to pouring resources into basketball and who aspire for a pathway to at large bids) should rally together and have a unified voice. Hire a PR or lobbyist firm to be an advocate. Doing nothing should not be an option, unless they are content becoming like the nearly 300 other D1 teams whose only pathway to the Dance is to win their conference tournament.

I'm not following - you have a problem with Tournament expansion benefiting mid majors? I'll ask again, do you think Indiana State with a NET of 28 would have made the tournament in a 76 team field? Do you think VCU last year would have been solidly an at large team last year with a sub Top 40 NET? If the answer to those questions is yes, then this is at least a step in the right direction... although still far from perfect.

Schertz strikes me as quite logical - maybe not quite Mr. Spock level, but very level headed. It's also highly logical to think that because D1 expanded by 60 teams in the last 40 years - that expanding the Tournament field as well is reasonable. Money drives everything, so expanding the Tournament field always struck me as far more likely than the selection committee deciding to tinker with their criteria to benefit mid majors.

Like I said, it unfortunately won't be perfect in how it is implemented, but the current system is far worse and yes, I will side with Schertz on what's better for mid majors considering he's a guy who got screwed out of an at large with a NET of 28.