billiken_roy Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 cheese i continue to believe that the fact is that the a-10 is not a lousy conference playerwise. if the a-10 teams went out to the playground and just played, the a-10 would finish higher than they did in the rpi rankings. the problem is that the a-10 is so administratively retarded that they are their own worse enemies. it pains me in hindsight to see what umass wasted last year. with smarter scheduling that was an ncaa team. yet couple their own f up of out of conference scheduling and the rest of the league's poor sos that translated to no help rpi wise for inconference games equated to an rpi ranking that was far below what umass should have been rated. i ask anyone, who was the better team? umass or missouri state? yet rpi's were 30 places apart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 I agree that the A10 is not as bad as the numbers paint and I do not argue with that 6 teams could easily vie for a bid. My point was all we ever hear is how weak the A10 is but then when people start talking specifically about teams then all of a sudden the conference looks stronger. All I am saying is there is a disconnect and people can not have it both ways - either the A10 is a poor conference or not? I also agree that the OC schedules need to be upgraded by many of the conference teams but I also think they actually have to win those games. For whatever the reason several of the A10 teams seem to get off to a slow start thus they end up performing less well in their overall OC schedules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 It's simple the top half of the A10 is pretty decent, maybe better than their rpi indicates, due to having to play too many poor teams in conference. The size of the A10 leaves each team having to play to many teams with 200+ rpi's. (some have to play some teams twice). It drags the rpi down making the league look worse than it was. The top of the A10 is as good as the top of the MVC. The MVC being a smaller conference each team gets to play the top teams twice. They also don't have as many bottom feeders. Official Billikens.com sponsor of H Waldman Official Sponser of the Stemmler and Ahearn could and would have helped club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Good point Skip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 The most telling indicator about next year was RM's decision to take the job at all. I don't think he would be here if he had the swiss cheese team Zo left UB. Too much up front work for him. I think he looked at KL and TL and thought, "hey, I've got a pretty good foundation here." Does it all add up to an invite? We've either got to have a gaudy w-l record of 23-25 w's or win the tourney. Some of those w's have to come against name ooc teams, and get 12-13 w's in conference to get them. This will be difficult as the top teams have only improved themselves. We've got to hope RM can improve the inside game with what he's got available. That means BH, AK, BE, LM, and MR have really got to step up and be ready by November. Then you've got to wonder who will be the PG? We don't have a guard, other than TL, who really has ever played point. Yes, DP has tried, but he's never shown the skill set to be an effective pg. I would not be surprised to see RM try and transform KL into the PG. Getting 23-24 w's out of RM next year ain't gonna be easy, but it's what we need regardless of whose the HC. RM's the man who gives us the best shot at getting them, hands down the best guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaleJarr Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 "Then you've got to wonder who will be the PG? I would not be surprised to see RM try and transform KL into the PG". Do you lose more than you gain converting Kevin into a PG? I love what Kevin bring scoring wise. Kevin is shooter with a scorer's mentality. I think you can use Tommie as the PG and be effective as long as someone emerges as the other perimeter scorer. Someone to balance the floor for Tommie. Teams got away with dropping defenders down on Tommie as he drove to the basket. They knew the only shooter they had to respect was Kevin. I hope Dustin is working his ##### off this offseason, because if we have to depend on Danny we're in big time trouble. As far as the NCAA's, I wasn't all that confident before the coaching change. Now I'm a bit more upbeat, but certain things must happen. Kevin and Tommie need to be around 18-20ppg. A third perimeter shooter must develop. Eberhart has to be the real deal. Bryce, Knollmeyer, and Relphorde must be servicable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 I don't know how much of Majerus's coaching you have had an opportunity to watch in the past, but don't be surprised if he gets much, much more out of the current personnel than we are used to seeing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB73 Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 I say over / under next year is 20 wins. Lost Ian, gained Majerus. Ian was not himself for middle ten games but took up space, drew defenders, got some rebounds, etc... Hope I'm wrong, hope we get 24 wins. But would not bet on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaleJarr Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 >I don't know how much of Majerus's coaching you have had an >opportunity to watch in the past, but don't be surprised if >he gets much, much more out of the current personnel than we >are used to seeing. Not doubting the coaching ability, just really concerned about what we have outside of Tommie and Kevin. Where will the interior points come from when the jumpshots are not falling? That's why I say Eberhardt better be the real deal. Hopefully something of a poor man's LJ. On the other hand a 6'8 260 late signee wouldn't hurt either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NH Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 danny is not that bad of a shooter he usually shoots around 37% from 3 that is not horrible but is till agree with you point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NH Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 sorry but who is LJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaleJarr Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 >sorry but who is LJ One of the greatest 6'6 inch college power forwards of all time. UNLV's Larry Johnson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 Danny may have a good 3 shot, but until he stops the stupid turnovers, he's a liability on the court. I've always liked his scorer's mentality and expected big things his Jr. year, but it didn't happen. RM is not going to stand for a guy who can at times hit the three but is a TO machine. DB and JJ were the weak links on the bench last year. If they had stepped up, UB would probably still be the HC. In hindsight, we're probably all glad they didn't as the program would still be stuck in neutral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaleJarr Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 >danny is not that bad of a shooter he usually shoots around >37% from 3 that is not horrible but is till agree with you >point Not bad numbers, however Danny is not a spot up shooter. He will have stretches were his corner shots are caroming off the side of the backboard. I can live with turnovers, but Danny's turnovers are mostly sins of omission as opposed to commision. Look at Danny's physical conditioning. He should be a lock down defender, but he is not. In summary, inconsistent shooter, turnover prone, and lacks defensive intensity to make up for tunovers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3star_recruit Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 I'd he happy with a poor man's Carl Landry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.