Thoughts to date?
- Thread starter Halldan1
- Start date
And our history is that much of the talent transfers before they become juniors or seniors so Willard's teams never get a chance to get "old".
Kind of what I expected from this team. They are young, but talented and very poorly coached. They'll win a few games they are not supposed to and lose to a few teams they shouldn't.
I see them being around .500 overall with 6-7 wins in conference which should send Willard packing.
I see them being around .500 overall with 6-7 wins in conference which should send Willard packing.
I think the youth is a tricky concept for most fans given the larger context of the program. You have a coach and leadership in its 6 season with abysmal results, yet we have to stress patience with the roster. A conundrum.
Yes, it is. I think if you put a really good coach with this squad, I'm not convinced we'd be tourney locks or be a ton better than how we'll end up. But alot of the currency has been drained for this regime so patience is thin. I am no fanboy of the coach but if he can add on to Powell with a respectable class and keep the arrow pointing up in Feb/March, I will be a happy camper.
Powell is a good hook, no doubt, and if a change was made there'd be every opportunity to make it work, such as Louis Orr did with John Allen or Willard himself with Fuquan Edwin. Even Gonzo came in and picked up Eugene Harvey late.
After 5 years of Willard and the implosions we've sat through - not to mention the turnstile rosters - what he would have to accomplish this year to redeem himself is significant. To think we've turned the corner with this coach in Year 6? This team would have to get progressively better throughout the course of a season (and buck his own trend), and be serious contender for an NCAA at-large berth.
I set the bar at NCAA or bust, but reasonable minds can prevail and if being left on the doorstep on Selection Sunday would probably the the only grey area, IMO.
I think sometimes we'll look good but more often we won't which will add up to no NCAAs which has to be the bare minimum bar for success this year.
I hear you on that and totally understand. But part of me thinks, "you've waited 6+ years, and the ship finally appears to be righted, why blow it up if you think we're close". No matter at this point though, at the end of the season everything needs to be measured and weighed and we'll see where we stand.
Lots of teams have youth on their roster and still are able to win and make the tourney . While we're a heavily sophomore team all 5 starters have a year's experience under their belt and it's not like we're starting players with no college experience and that makes it easy to use our youth as an excuse. This team could have been so much better if we brought in a true PG who was eligible immediately and a quality experienced big .
I think we need watch the pre-BE games to determine if this team is "growing" and is starting to "get it". By the start of the BE season, the "youth" factor is out the window, and these guys should start showing signs of whether they will steadily improve the rest of the season. I think the second half of Ole Miss was a good sign of growth. Let's see if that carries through versus GA and GW. And most importantly, youth should not determine whether the team will wilt at the end of the season as they so often have done over Willard's regime. They've been through it once before, so there are no surprises this year.
All that being said, I think the NIT is the most reasonable expectation for this team.
All that being said, I think the NIT is the most reasonable expectation for this team.
There's an opening at the Comedy Shop at the Trop if you're interested.
I think most of us are there...we don't have a choice to be honest, but that doesn't mean you can't have opinions along the way.
I agree with you, however, we are really young in terms of experience. For instance, today we rank #309 on KenPom's experience statistic.
Experience: Uses eligibility class weighted by minutes played. A freshman has no years experience, a sophomore has one year experience, etc.
http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/entry/help_with_team_page/
Not talking about what others said in the past. Talking about this team.
5 starters, all sophomores. 4 with one year under their belts and a fifth who barely played last year.
Two other players, Veer and Nzei in the rotation as first year players. If that isn't youth then I think some just don't want to acknowledge what they are seeing.
The BE is 5-4 against the B10 which is not exactly terrible (G'town beat Wisconsin).
Two different topics.
Those that feel that the staff could have performed better in their first 5 years here have the right to voice that opinion.
But to not acknowledge the youth of this particular team is lending a blind eye to the situation.
Piratz . My big problem with that statistic is that it doesn't factor in the quality of the player. As an example if Kentucky had a roster made up of 5 five star freshman and 3 five star sophomores they could be at the bottom of the KenPom experience stat yet be #1 in the polls. Hell there are teams where the freshman and sophomores have far more value and contribute more then the upperclassman on the team. I'm not saying that a team's youth and experience isn't a factor , it is but it's only one component that defines a team's success or failure.
Here's why the youth thing means little to me:
Butler = 2.06 years
DePaul = 1.87 years
Creighton = 1.73 years
Villanova = 1.61 years
Xavier = 1.59 years
St. John's (NY) = 1.49 years
Georgetown = 1.36 years
Seton Hall = 1.25 years
Providence = 1.03 years
Marquette = 0.89 years
Really little difference for the most part throughout the conference.
Butler = 2.06 years
DePaul = 1.87 years
Creighton = 1.73 years
Villanova = 1.61 years
Xavier = 1.59 years
St. John's (NY) = 1.49 years
Georgetown = 1.36 years
Seton Hall = 1.25 years
Providence = 1.03 years
Marquette = 0.89 years
Really little difference for the most part throughout the conference.
This thread is a solid example of how genuinely aligned most of us are. There are large scale problems but there is also the season the players are playing in right now. I think all of us (almost all of us?) respect this deeply. We're paying attention to the players, their performance and their growth. That's exactly what it should be.
The volcano will blow up on schedule in March, so, the better part of valor is for us to cheer the team and wait until the lava flow gets nearby.
The volcano will blow up on schedule in March, so, the better part of valor is for us to cheer the team and wait until the lava flow gets nearby.
This brings up an outstanding point. Everything can be ranked from 1 through 350 (or whatever the Mendoza Line is). BUT the thing of interest is which of these stats (thinking Ken Pom) is significant (statistically speaking). It's not merely a scaling difference. It's about which of them are strongly predictive of wins and losses. I think Ken Pom's "Four Stats" tries to get at this.
Gotta give more than just that.
You could have bench players who are young and not playing as opposed to players in the starting five and in the rotation.
I agree with this because it's an aggregate stat. The experience stat is noteworthy because it's just one tool of evaluation to give you an indication on where things are. Look at Providence, for example. Their number is actually below ours, but they have Kris Dunn. That one special player will cover a lot of the others' miscues on his own.
I think both points are made clear, but it's difficult if we're talking about the overall harmony/morale of the board because the two topics are interrelated but contradictory. That's why I think the fan base (myself included!) will up up and down all season, even if the team is progressing in general.
There's just zero confidence the coach knows what he's doing so if he's truly improved and has the pulse of this team, it will only be measured in wins and that's hard for a young team because you're skipping that natural stage of progress where you see improvement, just may not be over the hump yet.
And at this stage I think most fans are concerned he even still has the keys to this new car.
I don't think it's materially different either. We are sophomore (6) dependent but only have one freshman in the 8 man rotation and one fifth year senior. Anderson should be your 9th player. End of the bench is two freshman and one Soph.
Complain to KenPom, those are his numbers that you've been quoting, LOL. St. John's looks really fishy, I would have thought they were the least experienced followed by Marquette.
Those sophomores have 1 year and a couple of games under their belts. And we have two, not one first year players.Singh and Nzei.
Right now we have an 8 man rotation. The ninth man is averaging about 5 MPG in 4 games and he didn't get off the bench in another game.
5 sophomores
2 freshmen
1 senior
I don't quote those number. Meaningless to me.
I do post his rankings but often don't agree with them.
For instance he has Nova as the second best team in the country. Love them but not by that much.
We haven't looked good except for maybe the Ole Miss game. We lost the most important game on our entire ooc schedule. I agree that we're really young but when 1 is a McDonald's AA, 1 is BE ROY, the other 2 are top 100 players, & throw in a solid 6th man..we should be better!!
Nor an excuse at the end of the season. But right know not to acknowledge the lack of experience is just being too negative.
Isn't that the case for ALL sophomores?? lol
Without checking team by team my guess is that most are starting one freshman and a few starting two. Plus four of our soph's played a ton of minutes last year as freshman, more than most would.
A
anon_4htvdezyfe7k9
Guest
I don't agree with using youth as an excuse generally, but I'd hope if KenPom is using those average ages for any meaningful analysis, he's applying MPG to them in some way.
Of course it is. And that's the point I wanted to make. These are not sophomores nearing the end of their second year. These are sophomore's just starting the season. That's a big difference.
Too much is being expected too soon from too many. The sins of the past are being borne by this current group and that's not fair to them.
So many fans are upset with the previous five years under KW that there is no patience being shown to players who deserve better at this point in their young careers.
Dan
I believe that there is another factor that may have led to unrealistic expectations for this class of sophomores and that is all the hype that accompanied this nationally ranked top 15 class coming out of high school. Anytime you have an incoming class ranked that high you expect immediate results and if you don't get in year one you expect it from the start of year two.
I believe that there is another factor that may have led to unrealistic expectations for this class of sophomores and that is all the hype that accompanied this nationally ranked top 15 class coming out of high school. Anytime you have an incoming class ranked that high you expect immediate results and if you don't get in year one you expect it from the start of year two.
Fine job of coaching by Coach Willard and staff esp. after disappointment of Thurs. loss in round one.
Completely agree. I watched the women beat Rutgers and there wasn't one time during the game where I was frustrated with a play, a forced shot or bad passing. The team has nice chemistry, shoots the ball well, shoots well from the line and overall a real pleasure to watch. Compare that to the men - so far one half of decent ball against Ole Miss, otherwise an uneven performance so far with lots of turnovers and iffy offense not to mention lackluster D. Got to credit the players, but Tony B is pulling the right strings. Let's hope Coach Willard gains some confidence along with the players and we build some momentum after the Ole Miss game.
Similar threads
