At Large Talk

[RUBillsFan]

6 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

ha.   i got myself into it now.    i think dambrot with duquesne  is a very good floor coach and i like schmidt at st b.  i consider them the two best in the A10.   obviously rickma was a game master might be the best ever.   i love mark few at game time.   i like scott drew.  these are the ones that come to me off the top of my head.  i am not looking up their records because i am lazy. 

I had to do a double take on this one.  I'm not going to go back through all 25k+ posts, but this might be the first positive thing Roy has ever posted about Majerus.  

[RUBillsFan]

11 minutes ago, wgstl said:

The A10 has a lot of parity between 2-6. Not always a bad thing, but in this case it backfired. The A10 simply didn't have a good enough OOC for the top teams. 

None of the 2-6 teams beating Dayton has hurt the overall total as well.  If any of SLU, Richmond, or Rhody had knocked off Dayton, I think they're probably in and Dayton is a 3-4 seed instead of a 1-2 seed.

I really didn't see Dayton (potentially) going undefeated in league play.

[billiken_roy]

20 minutes ago, RUBillsFan said:

I had to do a double take on this one.  I'm not going to go back through all 25k+ posts, but this might be the first positive thing Roy has ever posted about Majerus.  

that is incorrect.   i have ALWAYS said he was a basketball genius.   i just hated rickma because of some of his off court antics with players and their family, boosters, fans, etc.   totally uncalled for and imo didnt deserve the honor of being associated with saint louis university because of it. 

but basketball wise, i have always given him credit for basketball decisions that didnt affect the players personally.

[3star_recruit]

4 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

ha.   i got myself into it now.    i think dambrot with duquesne  is a very good floor coach and i like schmidt at st b.  i consider them the two best in the A10.   obviously rickma was a game master might be the best ever.   i love mark few at game time.   i like scott drew.  these are the ones that come to me off the top of my head.  i am not looking up their records because i am lazy. 

I was with you Roy until you got greedy and added Scott Drew.  Drew had a reputation as one of the worst floor coaches in the Big 12 for years and years.  The perception recently changed because at some point you have to acknowledge that everyone needs talent to win at a high level.  You can't knock a guy for "only" winning 20 games with four-star recruits, when he does it year after year after year.  If a guy wins consistently, eventually he's going to have a monster year like Drew is having this year.

Grant is at the same point on the perception curve as Drew was 10 years ago, IMO.  All Grant has done is win in his two tenures in the A10.  He's a great fit for this conference.

I think people fall in love with the idea of Dambrot or Schmidt being great floor coaches because they construct balanced rosters with lower rated recruits.  These balanced rosters often cause mismatches for other teams.  I've come to view that as their greatest strength as a coach - roster construction - but that doesn't fit into the Norman Dale imagery of coaching genius that a lot of fans have in their heads.  Is Bob McKillop falling on his face this year because he lost his supposed coaching genius or because his carefully constructed roster is missing a couple of pieces?  Wouldn't a great "floor coach" be able to overcome that?  These are just general questions to the board, not necessarily aimed at you BRoy.

[NH]

13 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

I was with you Roy until you got greedy and added Scott Drew.  Drew had a reputation as one of the worst floor coaches in the Big 12 for years and years.  The perception recently changed because at some point you have to acknowledge that everyone needs talent to win at a high level.  You can't knock a guy for "only" winning 20 games with four-star recruits, when he does it year after year after year.  If a guy wins consistently, eventually he's going to have a monster year like Drew is having this year.

Grant is at the same point on the perception curve as Drew was 10 years ago, IMO.  All Grant has done is win in his two tenures in the A10.  He's a great fit for this conference.

I think people fall in love with the idea of Dambrot or Schmidt being great floor coaches because they construct balanced rosters with lower rated recruits.  These balanced rosters often cause mismatches for other teams.  I've come to view that as their greatest strength as a coach - roster construction - but that doesn't fit into the Norman Dale imagery of coaching genius that a lot of fans have in their heads.  Is Bob McKillop falling on his face this year because he lost his supposed coaching genius or because his carefully constructed roster is missing a couple of pieces?  Wouldn't a great "floor coach" be able to overcome that?  These are just general questions to the board, not necessarily aimed at you BRoy.

At the end of the day, my personal view is that Xs and Os and/or "floor coaching" is one of the least important part of being a D1 college basketball coach. Yes, Majerus was really good at drawing up plays. But I think what made him so successful was his ability to identify under-the-radar talent, and to get people to buy in defensively. Most college basketball teams run roughly the same offensive sets and share a lot of the same defensive principles. I think what separates good coaches is recruiting, player development and motivation. This is an opinion of mine that has evolved over time, and I could totally be way off about it. 

For someone like Anthony Grant, I think he has done a really good job this year of putting his very-talented players in a position to maximize their offensive abilities. He likely got a lot of that from the NBA. But if you go back and look at his teams from Alabama, they consistently underachieved their talent level. I'm not smart enough to know how much of that was due to scheme or in-game coaching, but it's clear that he either improved his coaching, or is simply now in a place where his coaching works. 

[Slu let the dogs out?]

21 hours ago, BIG BILL FAN said:

this site has them as a 3rd seed in the NIT....i think we still have a chance at the NCAA if we make the finals of the A-10

 

https://thebarkingcrow.com/nit-bracketology/

They now have us as a 2 seed but it doesn't really matter because we are making the big dance.

[JettFlight5]

1 hour ago, Crewsorlose said:

Can we as a board start to parse what "one bid league" means? The empirical meaning is a league that gets one bid. That's not the same as some kind of normative meaning, based on the strength of the league, that it deserves a certain # of bids. Clearly it's a 2 or 3 bid league on that basis. But the teams near the top have to win the games. If SLU and URI had beaten Dayton, it would be a 3 or 4 bid league (empirically). That wouldn't say anything more about the quality of the league. But one team beating another in conference doesn't prove the league is stronger or weaker. That case is made in OOC. If the A-10 gets 3 teams in at this point, it will be lucky, if it gets one, unlucky. But neither will happen because the Selection Cmte determines it to be a "one bid" or "three bid" league. 

The way I was using it is the most negative way possible (that kind of day). By that, I mean any conference that gets 1 bid is no better than another league with 1 bid. It's a reactionary term. I posted that more out of frustration with the league than logic to be honest. 

[billiken_roy]

38 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

I was with you Roy until you got greedy and added Scott Drew.  Drew had a reputation as one of the worst floor coaches in the Big 12 for years and years.  The perception recently changed because at some point you have to acknowledge that everyone needs talent to win at a high level.  You can't knock a guy for "only" winning 20 games with four-star recruits, when he does it year after year after year.  If a guy wins consistently, eventually he's going to have a monster year like Drew is having this year.

Grant is at the same point on the perception curve as Drew was 10 years ago, IMO.  All Grant has done is win in his two tenures in the A10.  He's a great fit for this conference.

I think people fall in love with the idea of Dambrot or Schmidt being great floor coaches because they construct balanced rosters with lower rated recruits.  These balanced rosters often cause mismatches for other teams.  I've come to view that as their greatest strength as a coach - roster construction - but that doesn't fit into the Norman Dale imagery of coaching genius that a lot of fans have in their heads.  Is Bob McKillop falling on his face this year because he lost his supposed coaching genius or because his carefully constructed roster is missing a couple of pieces?  Wouldn't a great "floor coach" be able to overcome that?  These are just general questions to the board, not necessarily aimed at you BRoy.

mckillop's roster this year has a huge drop off in talent between grady and gundmensson and the rest.    some nights those two can carry them and some nights the poor inside guys step up above their abilities.   i probably should have included mckillop on my list.   i have no problem if you want to take drew off and put mckillop on.   

[slufanskip]

2 hours ago, Bills_06 said:

Good tweet by Stu.

 

The fact that they have a NET ranking above us just shows how flawed the system is. They're not just slightly higher than us they're 15 spots higher. 

[billiken_roy]

15 minutes ago, NH said:

At the end of the day, my personal view is that Xs and Os and/or "floor coaching" is one of the least important part of being a D1 college basketball coach. Yes, Majerus was really good at drawing up plays. But I think what made him so successful was his ability to identify under-the-radar talent, and to get people to buy in defensively. Most college basketball teams run roughly the same offensive sets and share a lot of the same defensive principles. I think what separates good coaches is recruiting, player development and motivation. This is an opinion of mine that has evolved over time, and I could totally be way off about it. 

For someone like Anthony Grant, I think he has done a really good job this year of putting his very-talented players in a position to maximize their offensive abilities. He likely got a lot of that from the NBA. But if you go back and look at his teams from Alabama, they consistently underachieved their talent level. I'm not smart enough to know how much of that was due to scheme or in-game coaching, but it's clear that he either improved his coaching, or is simply now in a place where his coaching works. 

actually imo what you call ability to identify talent for rickma was really his ability to cream his roster.   rickma would bring in an abundant number of recruits and drive them hard and then "cut" the ones that couldnt hack it or get it and then repeat the next year.   this is one of the main reasons i did not like rickma.    imo a coach should have to live with his recruits.   if he cant coach them up, he is stuck with them unless the player wants to leave.   yes yes the players all "know" it is a year by year scholarship.    but imo the reasoning behind that rule is not so a coach can cut players that arent good enough.   it is to get rid of problem players that wont perform off the court as student's and good citizens.   

[3star_recruit]

2 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

The fact that they have a NET ranking above us just shows how flawed the system is. They're not just slightly higher than us they're 15 spots higher. 

There's barely any difference between a 38th and 53rd ranked team.  That's why a win over a single team, if they're highly ranked, can boost your ranking 15 spots.

[jimbofive]

6 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

actually imo what you call ability to identify talent for rickma was really his ability to cream his roster.   rickma would bring in an abundant number of recruits and drive them hard and then "cut" the ones that couldnt hack it or get it and then repeat the next year.   this is one of the main reasons i did not like rickma.    imo a coach should have to live with his recruits.   if he cant coach them up, he is stuck with them unless the player wants to leave.   yes yes the players all "know" it is a year by year scholarship.    but imo the reasoning behind that rule is not so a coach can cut players that arent good enough.   it is to get rid of problem players that wont perform off the court as student's and good citizens.   

Zero problems with this approach.  Creaming the roster is awesome and it's how real life works.  Hell, those guys kept having to make the cut every year to make their high school teams.  Are we crying for the 5'7" guy with good grades who never made the varsity team?  No.  At least when a D1 player's college coach cuts them, they can always fall back to a lower level.  These are adults, not children, and they're being given a free education to produce basketball results.  I bet very few players are run off after their freshman year.  But if a guy finishes two years in the program and he's a stiff, you gave him a fair shake and you can cream him, throw him a towel and make some calls to other colleges for him.

That "we owe them four years" bullsh!t is Soderberg nonsense and that don't win games, it don't get you in the tourney and it don't make millions.  This is a business.  Life is a business.  You wanna stick somewhere, work.  No free lunches.

[HoosierPal]

8 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

mckillop's roster this year has a huge drop off in talent between grady and gundmensson and the rest.    some nights those two can carry them and some nights the poor inside guys step up above their abilities.   i probably should have included mckillop on my list.   i have no problem if you want to take drew off and put mckillop on.   

Just about every A10 team got hit with major  injuries.  Davidson lost Pritchett and Frampton.  Put them back on that team and you have a different story.

[3star_recruit]

3 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

actually imo what you call ability to identify talent for rickma was really his ability to cream his roster.   rickma would bring in an abundant number of recruits and drive them hard and then "cut" the ones that couldnt hack it or get it and then repeat the next year.   this is one of the main reasons i did not like rickma.    imo a coach should have to live with his recruits.   if he cant coach them up, he is stuck with them unless the player wants to leave.   yes yes the players all "know" it is a year by year scholarship.    but imo the reasoning behind that rule is not so a coach can cut players that arent good enough.   it is to get rid of problem players that wont perform off the court as student's and good citizens.   

Coach's Majerus's greatest advantage as a coach was his ruthlessness, IMO.  He would have cut Hankton after last season.  You weren't allowed to stay in his program without being productive.  There wouldn't have been an opportunity for Jacobs to turn it around this year.  That's a little bit too cutthroat for my tastes but you can't question his effectiveness.

[slufanskip]

4 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

There's barely any difference between a 38th and 53rd ranked team.  That's why a win over a single team, if they're highly ranked, can boost your ranking 15 spots.

You follow and know more about the rankings end of than I do. But it'll be interesting to see how many teams with a NET between 35 and 40 make it with an at large and how many between 50-55 with an at large

[JettFlight5]

3 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

Just about every A10 team got hit with major  injuries.  Davidson lost Pritchett and Frampton.  Put them back on that team and you have a different story.

As much as I hate talking about injuries as a factor, you're right. We lost a couple really good players too. That's part of what has made UD so damn good this year...continuity with very good basketball players. 

[rgbilliken]

1 hour ago, Crewsorlose said:

Can we as a board start to parse what "one bid league" means? The empirical meaning is a league that gets one bid. That's not the same as some kind of normative meaning, based on the strength of the league, that it deserves a certain # of bids. Clearly it's a 2 or 3 bid league on that basis. But the teams near the top have to win the games. If SLU and URI had beaten Dayton, it would be a 3 or 4 bid league (empirically). That wouldn't say anything more about the quality of the league. But one team beating another in conference doesn't prove the league is stronger or weaker. That case is made in OOC. If the A-10 gets 3 teams in at this point, it will be lucky, if it gets one, unlucky. But neither will happen because the Selection Cmte determines it to be a "one bid" or "three bid" league. 

Here's my hot take, because i love getting into semantics (i think you and i are in agreement): "one bid league" is pretty specific and describes a conference in which the winner of the conference tournament will be the only NCAA tournament team regardless of if said team is the best team in the conference. The A10 is not a "one bid league" because if someone other than Dayton wins the conf. tournament, Dayton will still be in the tournament no matter what. Even if Dayton does win the A10 tourney and the conference only gets one bid because of that, I wouldn't describe the A10 as a "one bid league" -- I would describe it as a conference with one team in the tournament. "one bid league" is a bit of a misnomer because it describes the quality of the conference, not the actual number of bids received.

[JettFlight5]

6 minutes ago, rgbilliken said:

Here's my hot take, because i love getting into semantics (i think you and i are in agreement): "one bid league" is pretty specific and describes a conference in which the winner of the conference tournament will be the only NCAA tournament team regardless of if said team is the best team in the conference. The A10 is not a "one bid league" because if someone other than Dayton wins the conf. tournament, Dayton will still be in the tournament no matter what. Even if Dayton does win the A10 tourney and the conference only gets one bid because of that, I wouldn't describe the A10 as a "one bid league" -- I would describe it as a conference with one team in the tournament. "one bid league" is a bit of a misnomer because it describes the quality of the conference, not the actual number of bids received.

This is probably a more fair definition than mine. I think that 1 NCAA bids and 4 NIT teams would be a disaster of a season for the A10, but it's not fair to paint everyone with the same brush. 

[billiken_roy]

10 minutes ago, jimbofive said:

Zero problems with this approach.  Creaming the roster is awesome and it's how real life works.  Hell, those guys kept having to make the cut every year to make their high school teams.  Are we crying for the 5'7" guy with good grades who never made the varsity team?  No.  At least when a D1 player's college coach cuts them, they can always fall back to a lower level.  These are adults, not children, and they're being given a free education to produce basketball results.  I bet very few players are run off after their freshman year.  But if a guy finishes two years in the program and he's a stiff, you gave him a fair shake and you can cream him, throw him a towel and make some calls to other colleges for him.

That "we owe them four years" bullsh!t is Soderberg nonsense and that don't win games, it don't get you in the tourney and it don't make millions.  This is a business.  Life is a business.  You wanna stick somewhere, work.  No free lunches.

of course rickma sat in momma's living room and promised them he would be their daddy away from home look out for them and get them their degree.   a year later they are transferring to some d2 school in the middle of nowhere.   yes it is a business.  but be honorable about it.  

[HoosierPal]

5 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

of course rickma sat in momma's living room and promised them he would be their daddy away from home look out for them and get them their degree.   a year later they are transferring to some d2 school in the middle of nowhere.   yes it is a business.  but be honorable about it.  

Please list the players that Coach Majerus ran off. 

Thompson, probably.  Cotto flunked out.

Eckerle, left to become an MD.  John, medical issue. Jordan, maybe?  Reed, Sit 1, Reid, medical issue.

Salecich, maybe.

[NH]

1 minute ago, HoosierPal said:

Please list the players that Coach Majerus ran off. 

Thompson, probably.  Cotto flunked out.

Eckerle, left to become an MD.  John, medical issue. Jordan, maybe?  Reed, Sit 1, Reid, medical issue.

Salecich, maybe.

Adam Knollmeyer, Dustin McGuire, Anthony Mitchell. Salecich definitely. I don’t think Brett Thompson was run off as much as he couldn’t take the intensity.

[dlarry]

6 minutes ago, NH said:

Adam Knollmeyer, Dustin McGuire, Anthony Mitchell. Salecich definitely. I don’t think Brett Thompson was run off as much as he couldn’t take the intensity.

Yes!

Any opportunity to post this video needs to be taken advantage of.

[SShoe]

6 minutes ago, NH said:

Adam Knollmeyer, Dustin McGuire, Anthony Mitchell. Salecich definitely. I don’t think Brett Thompson was run off as much as he couldn’t take the intensity.

Other than Salecich, none of those guys were actually Rick's recruits.  He promised nothing to them per Roy's revisionist history scenario.

[SShoe]

53 minutes ago, NH said:

At the end of the day, my personal view is that Xs and Os and/or "floor coaching" is one of the least important part of being a D1 college basketball coach. Yes, Majerus was really good at drawing up plays. But I think what made him so successful was his ability to identify under-the-radar talent, and to get people to buy in defensively. Most college basketball teams run roughly the same offensive sets and share a lot of the same defensive principles. I think what separates good coaches is recruiting, player development and motivation. This is an opinion of mine that has evolved over time, and I could totally be way off about it. 

For someone like Anthony Grant, I think he has done a really good job this year of putting his very-talented players in a position to maximize their offensive abilities. He likely got a lot of that from the NBA. But if you go back and look at his teams from Alabama, they consistently underachieved their talent level. I'm not smart enough to know how much of that was due to scheme or in-game coaching, but it's clear that he either improved his coaching, or is simply now in a place where his coaching works. 

All good points and I agree with nearly all of it.  That said, I do think being a good floor/Xs and Os coach can be helpful in the recruiting process.  

[HoosierPal]

2 minutes ago, SShoe said:

Other than Salecich, none of those guys were actually Rick's recruits.  He promised nothing to them per Roy's revisionist history scenario.

Salecich is an interesting maybe.  He played in 67 games for Rick in two years.  No one knows how the conversation went, but PT seemed to be there.