Alum1 wrote:

GWRising wrote:

I have a ton of thoughts about last night's game ...

1. Let's take the obvious. We shot ourselves in the foot on numerous occasions whether it was missed bunnies, turnovers or bad defensive rebounding. It was not so much what American did to us as it was what we did to ourselves. The fact that we did not hit a three until OT is mind boggling. The fact that we couldn't hit FT's was all us not them. 52 points in the paint seems really good until you realize at a minimum we should have had 60-70. Not to be ridiculous, but for some of those who were arguing "nerves" against Kansas State was this also "nerves" or now are we seeing some of the deficits that we have to improve?

2. We can argue the decision not to foul with 14.5 seconds and while I would have instructed to foul once under 10 seconds (3-4 dribbles) that is often difficult to execute even when you draw it up and practice it. 14.5 was too soon to foul especially in light of the way we had been shooting free throws all night. You don't want a quick foul and 2 FTs leading to another quick foul and potentially 2 FTs for us which if one or more is missed now AU has north of 10 seconds to tie or win the game. Anything between the entire shot clock and 10 seconds is no-man's land for coaches in this situation - potentially damned if you do and damned if you don't.. It didn't work out but that probably had more to do with defensive positioning and a great shot by Smalls than it did with the decision not to foul. Hindsight is 20/20 and again I would have done something different but I understand the decision even if it didn't work out in light of our poor FT shooting all night. You can only coach to the strengths of your team. End of game situations have not been our strength so far and we need to fix that.

3. A word about the OOC. Last night again shows us why the OOC schedule is not as bad for us as we want to believe in terms of what we are ready for. We still have deficits which would be readily exposed by most P5 schools and playing them or better teams would not necessarily help either our execution or confidence. I think after last evening, we are where we should be schedule-wise for the most part even if we don't like that fact. 

4. Darren is a work in progress despite what one misguided poster here believes. He has strengths and weaknesses. He is still learning to play at this level. I think we should tamp down all the accolades talk and let him develop. He is an asset for us but has a lot of room to still grow his game before he becomes the player we all think and want him to be. We do him no favors by overhyping him here or elsewhere. When he is ready for such recognition (he is not yet), it will be readily apparent for all to see. So, he had a tough game last night. I'm more interested in the response. Everyone can have a tough game. The question is what will happen next and how does he respond over the coming weeks and months. That will tell us a lot about whether his ceiling is what we all hope it can be.

5. I would remind everyone that in 2002-03 a GW team went to American and lost. That team had Pops, Mike Hall, TJ Thompson etc. I am old enough to remember the "sky is falling" comments that ensued following that game. A year later that same basic team went onto the NIT and then eventually to NCAAs in subsequent years. No championships were won or lost last evening even though it sucks to lose to a team that we should be better than. Embrace the process because none of us truly knows what is around the corner for this team. 

6. Purely ridiculous to call for CC's head because we lost to American. That either results from ignorance over what we have witnessed over the past 8 years or a lack of understanding about where this team is in its development and reasonable expectations for its performance. Darren uncharacteristically misses a ton of FT's - is that CC's fault? Rafael uncharacteristically drops passes and misses dunks - again CC's fault? No one can make a three despite shooting it well or better over the past few games - again CC's fault? If we win at American by 1 is CC suddenly coach of the year? CC will ultimately be judged on his body of work this season not any particular game. How about we let that body of work proceed without a bunch of single game referendums - pro and con? Don't worry there will be plenty of time post-season for any post-mortems.

 
Who is calling for CC’s head? I see a lot of people calling him out. That’s entirely appropriate in my view.

Read DC Native's post above for one. How else do you interpret that?

Yes.! Terrible first halves. Terrible offensive playcalling. Possibly poorer transfers and recruits than we thought. The almost winless second half of last season--injuries or not-- was certainly a harbinger of potentially bad things to come. 

DC Native wrote:

GWRising wrote:

Alum1 wrote:

 
Who is calling for CC’s head? I see a lot of people calling him out. That’s entirely appropriate in my view.

Read DC Native's post above for one. How else do you interpret that?

I'm not calling for CC's head, but I do think his seat is getting a bit warm. You blame the players in your post, and CC blamed the players in his post game presser, but who selected those players? Who's job is it to prepare them for in game situations? Who's job is it to call a timeout and make adjustments when the game plan isn't working? This is year 3, so all of these players a CC players now. And CC should just stop with the comments about this team being young. Half of the 8 rotational players are upperclassmen (selected from the portal by him) and the other half are sophomores who were on the team last year. There have been very few freshmen minutes this year (understanding that this is partly due to injuries).

But this was one game, and I recognize that the team has played better up until this game. And CC and the team will have plenty of opportunities to make up for this game. If the team can win 10 conference games, we will look back on this game as a minor blip in the team's gradual improvement under an experienced and capable coach. But if the team finishes at the bottom of the conference again, we might just look back at this game as foreshadowing... I very much hope it is the former.

Sometimes it is on the coaching, sometimes it is on the players, sometimes it is on both. Last night was overwhelmingly on the players. That was a 20+ point win if they had made a reasonable amount of free throws, bunnies and threes. It is what it is. Players have bad games, sometimes collectively. Doesn't mean CC doesn't love them but sometimes you have to call it what it is.

Hutchinson, Jones, Buchanan and Autry are young by any standards. Johnson is hurt. Even Castro didn't play that  many minutes at Providence. Only really Moss, Hansen and Drumgole have significant playing experience in terms of minutes. So on balance we are pretty young in an era of increasing age and experience on the court. But here is the rub. You can criticize CC for the talent but the name of the game is NIL and up until now, GW has been woefully behind. The options are limited. Can't have champagne on a beer budget. Hopefully that gets upgraded.

Want to talk about a few of Rising's points, the ones included here:

GWRising wrote:

I have a ton of thoughts about last night's game ...


3. A word about the OOC. Last night again shows us why the OOC schedule is not as bad for us as we want to believe in terms of what we are ready for. We still have deficits which would be readily exposed by most P5 schools and playing them or better teams would not necessarily help either our execution or confidence. I think after last evening, we are where we should be schedule-wise for the most part even if we don't like that fact. 


5. I would remind everyone that in 2002-03 a GW team went to American and lost. That team had Pops, Mike Hall, TJ Thompson etc. I am old enough to remember the "sky is falling" comments that ensued following that game. A year later that same basic team went onto the NIT and then eventually to NCAAs in subsequent years. No championships were won or lost last evening even though it sucks to lose to a team that we should be better than. Embrace the process because none of us truly knows what is around the corner for this team. 

6. Purely ridiculous to call for CC's head because we lost to American. That either results from ignorance over what we have witnessed over the past 8 years or a lack of understanding about where this team is in its development and reasonable expectations for its performance. Darren uncharacteristically misses a ton of FT's - is that CC's fault? Rafael uncharacteristically drops passes and misses dunks - again CC's fault? No one can make a three despite shooting it well or better over the past few games - again CC's fault? If we win at American by 1 is CC suddenly coach of the year? CC will ultimately be judged on his body of work this season not any particular game. How about we let that body of work proceed without a bunch of single game referendums - pro and con? Don't worry there will be plenty of time post-season for any post-mortems.

To point 3, that maybe this was a good schedule for this roster, I say this game proved the opposite. Thus far, GW has played 6 games that would have been inexcusable losses, two games that are competitive (ISU and AU) and a game where a win would be a massive upset. GW is 1-1 in competitive games this year, which is fine, except for the fact that a team (and athletics department) whose future hinges on credible paths to the NCAA Tournament, needs much better games than those to be competitive.

But fine, let's say the AU game proves the tier we live in, and let's also cede that the team was uncharacteristically bad last night. If you're only going to have a couple of games that show where you belong, you need to make the most of them. A random stinker against a Q3 team is going to happen sometimes, but for an Atlantic 10 Team, it sure feels better when it's one bad game amidst 4 or 5 good ones. 

Which brings me to points 5 and 6. That 2002-03 team went 12-17 and finished 110th in the KenPom. They played a lot of great teams, and kept games against #14 UConn and #2 Texas within single digits. And, whether folks were gnashing teeth and pulling hair I don't know, because it predates me, but retrospectively, it's clear that KH's freshman class was obviously something to believe in. I felt similarly bad about Mount Saint Mary's loss to JC in 2013, but ML's freshman class was still getting its legs under them. 

This roster's core 1) isn't as young and 2) isn't sure to stay intact. Additionally, those losses I referenced happened in the second years for Hobbs and Lonergan, this is year 3 for CC. I'm not ready to say that CC isn't going to make it at GW, but I am saying that I don't feel as bullish as FQ or Rising about the trajectory. These guys could be developing something special that will bloom in '26 or '27, but with such a small sample size of middle-quality games, it's hard to as hopeful as I was in the early years of Lonergan.

Nobody is calling for CC to be fired. He is in his 3rd year now so the honeymoon period is over and the team must start showing improvement or he should be treated like every other coach GW has had. Assuming CC isn't back for a 4th year, we would be on our 5th coach (ML, MJ, JC, CC, ?) in 8 years. Has that ever happened in D-1 basketball history? I dread the thought.

Note to scheduler - if we are going to continue to have a pre-conference cupcake schedule, please schedule these 200+ teams at the Smitty (home). I'm tired of the ref's being blamed by a few here every time we lose a game away or at a neutral site.

to creeksandzeeks and moneybox ...

1. We are young and we have a lot of new guys by at least college basketball upper echelon standards. FQ laid it out.
2. The normal trajectory of a program is out the window in the new NIL era. I don't have an answer for what it should be but I know it's different and as far as GW is concerned, not better. If you want the GW of old (a MM program that could challenge for the NCAA tournament most years) you better hope that GW comes up with a stellar NIL budget. We continue to lose players (prospective transfers and freshmen that could really change the narrative) over one thing - money. Based on what I know, most players that are players who could lead GW to a A-10 title would be in the $150,000 - $500,000 NIL range. You probably need 4-5 of those plus everyone else will get something. That means you probably have to have $1,500,000 - $2,000,000 per year in this era if you want to play for titles and NCAA tournaments. To date, GW, while doing better on the NIL front, isn't anywhere close. Can't win stakes races if you don't have enough stakes horses. So we can lament losing to American but our NIL situation is a lot closer to theirs than say to Dayton's. Harkening back to Jarvis, Hobbs and Lonergan for comparison is comparing apples and oranges. Not one of them ever had to deal with NIL and knowing all three only one would like it. It has changed the game forever and schools like GW have been hurt. If a player comes to GW and excels the P5's will be lined up with money that GW can never offer. No way a Yuta, Pops, Carl, Mike, Yinka, Kwame, Shawnta, Patricio, etc. would have lasted at GW in the NIL era. .So a lot of this isn't JC's or CC's fault, it's just that our expectations are way out of whack to where we are as a program and how we are funded. Absent the University deciding to pony up a lot more money to make us competitive in this new world, we are who we are for the most part and that's a hell of a lot closer to American than to Dayton (or some other A-10 programs). 

Last edited by GWRising (12/05/2024 5:31 pm)

Let's stop blaming the era of the NLI for our woes.
Teams like St Bonnies, Rhode Island, Vermont and Drake have lesser facilities and in much less desirable places than us yet seem to produce good competitive teams consistently. Looking at the current NET top 50 you will see teams like UCI, Bradley, George Mason and UC Santa Barbara. They all have the same NIL issues as we do.
We have become a lower level team in the A-10. Many reasons for this. Does the administration continue down this road or do we go to a better suited conference like the Patriot League?

Joel Joseph wrote:

Let's stop blaming the era of the NLI for our woes.
Teams like St Bonnies, Rhode Island, Vermont and Drake have lesser facilities and in much less desirable places than us yet seem to produce good competitive teams consistently. Looking at the current NET top 50 you will see teams like UCI, Bradley, George Mason and UC Santa Barbara. They all have the same NIL issues as we do.
We have become a lower level team in the A-10. Many reasons for this. Does the administration continue down this road or do we go to a better suited conference like the Patriot League?

George Mason has significantly more NIL dollars than we do. Wouldn't suprise me if it was 2X if not 3X of us.  You don't get someone like KD Johnson to commit to Mason of all places without some cash and a brand-new car from Jim McKay Chevrolet. If I were a mercenary CBB player I would take an extra $75k and a truck to live in Fairfax over Foggy Bottom.

What will be interesting to see is what the school does when NIL comes in house and the school can divert more general dollars to the MBB program for player salaries.

Last edited by GW0509 (12/05/2024 7:04 pm)

Well. it's basically all been said.    I might add that my root canal today was much more pleasant than watching the Dupont Circle Duo (Jun and Jacoi) lose to a seemingly much more motivated AU squad.   I, too, believe that GW would have won by at least 20 in regulation had it merely played its' average offensive game.   I've never seen so many missed bunnies.   I had no problem with the strategy of Jun simply bull-rushing the basket and laying it in.   He could have scored 40 easy just on lay-ins over vertically challenged and less-than-beefy defenders.   But alas, he decided to emulate his 3-point shooting prowess from underneath the bucket.   I, too, am very happy we can achieve some sense of renewed hope very soon at ODU, and so write off the Bender Blunder as a cruel anomaly.  

All totally fair, Mayhem, and it's incumbent on GW to prove to you and many others that this is a different culture and these are different people. The Board of Trustees is nearly brand new. The President is new, the Provost is new, the AD is new, the Coach is new. 

I've emotionally moved on from that debacle, but it does feel like we're in a standoff: If Rising (and The Dude) are on to something that this is a cash issue, the department can't move forward without more cash, but the fan/donor base is desperately looking for proof that the administration is going to make it money well spent.

Granberg clearly likes athletics, and Lipitz and CC clearly have the pedigree to be successful. So what does it take for you to believe again? What signs do you need to know that the page has been turned? The stalemate has been going on for eight years now, and either it breaks and folks who can make serious investments are going to do it, or it'll hold and we'll continue to fade. 

As time goes on, much as I hate to say it, I'm becoming increasingly ambivalent about which direction it goes. It's been too long now.