I disagree, they have a few guys who were solid all year. Their backcourt was key to their winning.
Davidson? App St?Oh Iām sorry, youāre right. St. Bonnies and Fordham and Duquene really get my juices flowing, Iām dripping.
Ok, can you name more than two teams from SoCon that are worth a darn? And also, Davidson just had their first NCAA berth sinceā¦ 69? All I know is it sure was a long time. I could see C of C in there too so you got 3.
As for the A10, weāve got Xavier, UMass, Temple, GW, St. Joeās, Rhode Island, Dayton, not sure how great they have been of late but at least La Salle has a natāl title, and then us and St. Louis when we were in CUSA.
Are we really having this discussion?
Ok, can you name more than two teams from SoCon that are worth a darn? And also, Davidson just had [B]their first NCAA berth since... 69[/B]? All I know is it sure was a long time. I could see C of C in there too so you got 3.As for the A10, weāve got Xavier, UMass, Temple, GW, St. Joeās, Rhode Island, Dayton, not sure how great they have been of late but at least La Salle has a natāl title, and then us and St. Louis when we were in CUSA.
Are we really having this discussion?
I think you mean win, they were in the tourney last year.
I think you mean win, they were in the tourney last year.lol yea. I totally musta misheard whatever that stat was that they said during their NCAA tourney game. I'd been thinking that didn't sound right.
Anyway, the point still holds true about the SoCon. Only 3 worthwhile teams and ASU and C of C are kinda a stretch at that.
[QUOTE=CharSFNiners;316252]I think you mean win, they were in the tourney last year.[/QUOTE]
Historically, Davidson has been to the Big Dance 10 times plus 4 appearances in the NIT.
[QUOTE=Normmm;316247]I agree with this to a certain extent. But my point is that is not that different from most other teams in the country. The shots arenāt falling they lose. You take away their best weapon, they lose. Wouldnāt this 3 point logic apply to Davidson? No team depended on a single player more than them. We didnāt always lose on bad shooting nights from Lee. See the St Louis, GW and Wake Forest games.[/QUOTE]
Most good teams, most consistent teams, have other weapons and donāt live and die by the 3 point shot. I think thatās a fair statement. If they arenāt getting it done, the shots arenāt falling, they change strategy and do it another way. I would say all teams that do rely solely on the 3 ARE going to be inconsistent just like us. Davidsonās different IMO. I donāt think it was all about the 3 with Curry, he did other things to make things happen, penetration, jumpers, driving, passing etc. He was the whole package for Davidson. Our star was a one trick pony. And when heās not hitting, someone else is shooting and hitting 3s. Thatās why I said as a TEAM, the overall percentage is a tell tale sign of whether or not we won the game; regardless of who weāre playing. Remember too, other inconsistent teams certainly are bad too. We donāt hold the copyright. Thereās lots of different ways to do it. But I think the dependence on the perimeter shot makes US extremely inconsistent; thereās no telling if weāre going to win or lose no matter who the opponent is.
I disagree, they have a few guys who were solid all year. Their backcourt was key to their winning.
I like Richards. I would love to see us get a PG like that. But Curry was arguably the MOP of the NCAA tourney. They were as good as he was.
Most good teams, most consistent teams, have other weapons and don't live and die by the 3 point shot. I think that's a fair statement. If they aren't getting it done, the shots aren't falling, they change strategy and do it another way. I would say all teams that do rely solely on the 3 ARE going to be inconsistent just like us. Davidson's different IMO. I don't think it was all about the 3 with Curry, he did other things to make things happen, penetration, jumpers, driving, passing etc. He was the whole package for Davidson. Our star was a one trick pony. And when he's not hitting, someone else is shooting and hitting 3s. That's why I said as a TEAM, the overall percentage is a tell tale sign of whether or not we won the game; regardless of who we're playing. Remember too, other inconsistent teams certainly are bad too. We don't hold the copyright. There's lots of different ways to do it. But I think the dependence on the perimeter shot makes US extremely inconsistent; there's no telling if we're going to win or lose no matter who the opponent is.
I get your point. I gues I would say we had a bad shooting night, rather than we are so inconsistent in our system. Going back to the Wisconsin example, they finished the season #10 in the country and won the Big 10. They donāt play the same style of play as Charlotte. So that assumes they are a good team who doesnāt rely on the 3. Against Davidson they shot 37%, while Davidson shot 49%. They lost the game while having a bad shooting night.
[QUOTE=49or bust;316251]Ok, can you name more than two teams from SoCon that are worth a darn? And also, Davidson just had their first NCAA berth sinceā¦ 69? All I know is it sure was a long time. I could see C of C in there too so you got 3.
As for the A10, weāve got Xavier, UMass, Temple, GW, St. Joeās, Rhode Island, Dayton, not sure how great they have been of late but at least La Salle has a natāl title, and then us and St. Louis when we were in CUSA.
Are we really having this discussion?[/QUOTE]
Iām not saying the SoCon is the SEC, Iām not stupid. But, if you get football you have to start D1-AA. If it werenāt for the football issue, I would not advocate a move to the SoCon, although itās really not that bad.
App, Davidson, CofC and throw in Charlotte, all of the sudden things may get interesting. BTW, UNC-G is better. Also, look at the RPIs for baseball. SoCon isnāt bad and the A-10 is just God-awful.
Going to away games suddenly becomes doable as well. Being the top dog in a lesser conference certainly hasnāt hurt Gonzaga, Memphis, etc.
My basic point is that the A-10 no manās land.
Historically, Davidson has been to the Big Dance 10 times plus 4 appearances in the NIT.
I know theyāve been way more times then this year and last year, I just pointed out last year since it was the most recent, other than this year.
I get your point. [B]I gues I would say we had a bad shooting night, rather than we are so inconsistent in our system[/B]. Going back to the Wisconsin example, they finished the season #10 in the country and won the Big 10. They don't play the same style of play as Charlotte. So that assumes they are a good team who doesn't rely on the 3. Against Davidson they shot 37%, while Davidson shot 49%. They lost the game while having a bad shooting night.
We had a good number of bad shooting nightsā¦ that makes you inconsistent. I really donāt see how this just isnāt sinking in.
We shoot, we miss, we do not change it up and attack in other ways, therefore we suffer. Itās not a hard concept. Being inconsistent in basketball is losing a number of times in the same fashion, or b/c of similar situations. I think we can all agree that we had a number of games that we lost b/c we followed our regular path to damning ourselves during the game (bad shot selection, hurried possessions, bad foul shooting, lack of discipline/patience, reliance on the 3).
You cannot call just any team like UCLA or Wisconsin (both teams you used as examples) and name them consistent. UCLA lost 3? 4 games all year? Wisconsin as well only lost a handful of games. They had less combined losses then us (8), against tougher competition. Theyāre not inconsistent. The problem a program like that deals with is thinking youāre going to steamroll someone (Wisc.) or lose to a team you have difficulties matching up with athletically (UCLA), nothing there screams inconsistent.
If inconsistent it too broad a term for you then find one that works for you, and if works for me then Iāll happily change my terminology, but until then that word works perfectly ok for me and your the only person who seems to have a tough time with it. Weāre not consistent, so if weāre not consistent then what are we?
[QUOTE=Normmm;316282]I get your point. I gues I would say we had a bad shooting night, rather than we are so inconsistent in our system. Going back to the Wisconsin example, they finished the season #10 in the country and won the Big 10. They donāt play the same style of play as Charlotte. So that assumes they are a good team who doesnāt rely on the 3. Against Davidson they shot 37%, while Davidson shot 49%. They lost the game while having a bad shooting night.[/QUOTE]
I guess itās a matter of perspective Normm. Was it a bad shooting night or was it the types of shots we were taking? Shooting 3s are alot harder to shoot than layups and jumpers, thatās why theyāre worth more points. You shoot the higher percentage shots, your shooting percentage will be higher. I say the shots we take (our focus on that type of offense) makes our percentage lower (on average) and therefore a higher likelihood that we lose. Add to that your opponent KNOWS what type of game weāre going to be playing, Iām surprised weāve won as many games as we have. Balance is always needed. Itās just good basketball.
Regarding Wisconsin, 37% from the field isnāt even that bad. 49% is just ridiculously good. Wisconsin didnāt have a bad shooting night, they just got out gunned. Curry scored what, 40 points? Youāre just not going to win with an opponent hitting every other shot and the top scorer is scoring at will. Not a bad shooting night, but I would take a closer look at their defense for that gameās loss.
I donāt think having a bad shooting night makes a team inconsistent; everybody has them once in a while. Being inconsistent is a RECORD of erratic and underachieving play. Thatās what we do. EVERY year we lose to crappy teams and EVERY year we beat one or two good teams. That is the epitome of inconsistent plan. What drives me crazy is our inconsistency is so traceable, so predictable, so tangible that you can probably tell whether or not we won or lost the game simply by looking at ONE stat lineā¦that to me is a problem.
Why would SoCon want us if we were going to use them as a stepping stone to FBS?
They donāt want us. With the addition of Samford (Birmingham, AL) as of July 1st, there will be 12 schools in the SoCon. Canāt see them going beyond that.
BTW, for the SoCon āloversā among usā¦
ā¢ Davidson's Bob McKillop is in the middle of a renegotiation package with the school. McKillop has spurned overtures from Stanford, UMass, Rice and Providence since the Wildcats took eventual national champion Kansas to the final possession in the regional final in Detroit last month.McKillop said he fully anticipates the Davidson administration will treat him fairly after the great run the Wildcats had and will likely continue to do so with Stephen Curry, a potential 2008-09 player of the year, returning for his junior season.
The reality is that McKillop has a great life in Charlotte. He said Wednesday how important family life is to him, and coaching his sons Matthew and now Brendan has been a thrill. So, too, will be walking his daughter, Kerrin, down the aisle in August at a Davidson campus wedding.
ā¢ McKillop said Curry will spend the summer polishing up his point guard skills now that senior Jason Richards is gone. But McKillop said he wonāt use Curry exclusively in that role. He said Curry is ātoo valuable off the ball,ā so the junior will spend plenty of minutes at both positions next season. McKillop said he was thrilled with the effort of the team after its loss to Kansas.
āThey demanded our coaches get in the gym to work on individual instruction,ā McKillop said.
ā¢ McKillop will coach USA Basketballās U-18 team this summer. The team will begin training July 1 in Washington, D.C., at either Georgetown or the Washington Wizardsā practice facility. The competition is in Argentina later in the month. The total time commitment is 20 days, according to McKillop. USA Basketball gave him quite a staff with assistants like Georgetownās John Thompson III and VCUās Anthony Grant. The roster will be made up mostly of high school seniors and some college freshmen who meet the age requirement.
Link: ESPN Insider - Andy Katz
the ncaa tourney is a bonus.
:huhsign:
What the hell is going on around here?
:huhsign:What the hell is going on around here?
at this point, yeah it is. moreover, if you arenāt competitive in your conference every year, youāre not making the ncaa tournament.
I'm not saying the SoCon is the SEC, I'm not stupid. But, if you get football you have to start D1-AA. If it weren't for the football issue, I would not advocate a move to the SoCon, although it's really not that bad.App, Davidson, CofC and throw in Charlotte, all of the sudden things may get interesting. BTW, UNC-G is better. Also, look at the RPIs for baseball. SoCon isnāt bad and the A-10 is just God-awful.
Going to away games suddenly becomes doable as well. Being the top dog in a lesser conference certainly hasnāt hurt Gonzaga, Memphis, etc.
My basic point is that the A-10 no manās land.
Oh oh oh. Well I am all for being in the SoCon for football, but I donāt want to do a full move. I will not support a move to SoCon whatsoever if basketball goes.
The A10 may be no manās land for football (haha) but I hope you arenāt talking about basketball because that is absurd compared to the SoCon. We are the 7th best conference and Iāll sure as hell take that considering how much dick sucking the big 6 get.
But anyways, if it comes down to it since Iāve heard the SoConās commish wonāt take us for football only, Iāll be in whatever **** conference we have to be in for only football-- just so long as basketball isnāt jeopardized I wonāt care too much what happens.
I guess it's a matter of perspective Normm. Was it a bad shooting night or was it the types of shots we were taking? Shooting 3s are alot harder to shoot than layups and jumpers, that's why they're worth more points. You shoot the higher percentage shots, your shooting percentage will be higher. I say the shots we take (our focus on that type of offense) makes our percentage lower (on average) and therefore a higher likelihood that we lose. Add to that your opponent KNOWS what type of game we're going to be playing, I'm surprised we've won as many games as we have. Balance is always needed. It's just good basketball.Regarding Wisconsin, 37% from the field isnāt even that bad. 49% is just ridiculously good. Wisconsin didnāt have a bad shooting night, they just got out gunned. Curry scored what, 40 points? Youāre just not going to win with an opponent hitting every other shot and the top scorer is scoring at will. Not a bad shooting night, but I would take a closer look at their defense for that gameās loss.
I donāt think having a bad shooting night makes a team inconsistent; everybody has them once in a while. Being inconsistent is a RECORD of erratic and underachieving play. Thatās what we do. EVERY year we lose to crappy teams and EVERY year we beat one or two good teams. That is the epitome of inconsistent plan. What drives me crazy is our inconsistency is so traceable, so predictable, so tangible that you can probably tell whether or not we won or lost the game simply by looking at ONE stat lineā¦that to me is a problem.
Fair enough. I think the problem is that we often compare ourselves to some of the top teams in the country, which isnāt realistic. Ultimately would I like to be there? Of course. But to say we arenāt balanced because we donāt go inside like a Kansas, UCLA or UNC-CH just isnāt realistic. We donāt have that talent level. To expect us to not have hiccups of bad losses, with our talent level, is also unrealistic. Do I get frustrated when we have those losses? Of course.
A lot of times people say they would like to see us play more fundamental basketball like a Drake, Butler or Davidson. The interesting thing is that they all attempted more 3 pointers than we did, with Davidosn attempting the most. They attempted 901 to Charlotteās 786.
For Wisconsin, 39% is inconsistent if you shot 53% the game before. Whether they are taking 2s or 3s doesnāt matter to me if its 53% one game and 39% the next, thatās inconsistent. I agree that their defense was probably a large reason for their loss. But again, if you play bad defense one game and good defense the next game, that would have to be considered inconsistent.
For me, I just think inconsistency is a very vague term. It applies to most teams in the country. Based on a variety of explanations for inconsistency, I would say there were only a handful of teams that were truly consistent the whole season. Maybe Kansas, Memphis, Davidson, Xavier. Of course they ended up being 4 of the top 10 teams in the country, so they are in the minority.