And here we go ... 

A few losses and the coach was outcoached, needs to consult with a sports psychologist, doesn't work on three-point defense, the OOC schedule is coming back to bite us, etc. 

Or maybe it is just college basketball where we have a largely young and inexperienced team that is going to experience ups and downs over the course of the season - this being the down phase. This, of course, has been pointed out numerous times over the course of the season including by CC but no one seems to want to believe it. 

But if you want to discuss the specifics of the loss on Saturday. Hard to win when you go 3-18 from three, there is no ball movement on offense (7 assists) and you allow two guards on the other team to basically dog walk you into the post. I am pretty sure CC didn't tell them to stop moving the ball, miss three point shots, or allow their guards to dog walk them into the post. Fix one of those three and we probably win, Fix two of three and we definitely win. Bad execution leads to bad results.

The sky is not falling anymore than we were going to the NCAAs at 3-1. This is a young team and a work in progress. Same as it was two months ago. There will be another up phase without the sports psychologist, the same OOC schedule, CC teaching defense the same way and coaching the same way. That's how this works. Might want to get used to the ups and downs this year. It will save you some angst.

Last edited by GWRising (1/29/2024 10:56 am)

Class 'o 70 wrote:

Two things can be true at once. Yes, the nature of college hoops, and especially young teams, is up and down, up and down. But that does not mean that we can't help things along through coaching adjustments and turning to other resources like a sports psychologist who can try to address some of the attitudes/player responses to certain situations, such as playing sloppily on account of over-confidence and then losing composure when the other team unexpectedly dominates the game.

Who is "we"?

And second, do you think some of these issues can be fixed better through experience (game and practice reps) or by a sports psychologist? I find it strange that no one suggested we needed a sports psychologist just 2 weeks ago when we beat Davidson. 

Third, when did we lose composure? I wasn't aware of any fights, technical fouls, or arguing amongst teammates on Saturday. What we lost was execution. Big difference between that and composure.

The foul disparity was odd, quite possibly for an apparent reason, as it was not us benefitting from home calls.
While you often hear about having a foul to give or even a couple of fouls to give, giving 5 fouls in a row purposely (it may have been six) was quite unusual.
   In the LaSalle game we were heavily favored and at home, so there's no reason not to talk about it.
Otherwise, all we'd have to do is talk about the overly loud PA system, another part of the fun fan experience.
  The Charmin OOC schedule, which would even have made a former nearby coach blush if he were still alive, may be coming back to bite us. Perhaps Fordham (at home) seemed more formidable because we weren't used to A-10 level competition.
    After showing a new look right at the start, we do seem to have reverted to the same things that doomed us in recent years. James dribbling around waiting for an opportunity (now joined by Jun), failure to free up our best 3-point shooter, and making career games and team records for 3-point shooting against us. Amongst other issues.
     We have really good talent, handicapped only by our size, including 4 of the better, if not best A-10 players, along with a shot blocker. Our coach is very knowledgeable, and basketball experienced at a higher level.
     LaSalle beat us thoroughly at home. So, it may be worth thinking about what could be changed, given what this board is about.
   And for the team, the seeds of a comeback can be planted, at least, at Dayton.  
  
    
    

​I'm still a working stiff and can't follow college basketball 24/7, but I'm in the give CC a break camp. He is in just his second year as CEO and notwithstanding all of his assistant coach experience, is still learning the job himself.  

I don't think we've fully reckoned how the NIL and transfer portal era is going to create a lot of volatility in the game--as we've already witnessed with so many topsy-turvy games and unexpected losses even with upper echelon schools. 

It was already hard enough to recruit and build programs under the old rules where newcomers were mostly freshman and sophomores (not immediate transfers) who took time to learn the college game and a coach's system.  Now, you're not only mixing and matching multiple starters who've hardly played together and learning, but you're also trying to keep your talent happy enough (and compensated!) such that they don't want to walk out the door at the first opportunity. Comparison is the thief of joy and there's lot of opportunity for comparison these days.  How many talented kids today are saying, "I'll just sit, learn, work hard, and wait for my chance in two years!"  I'm sure there are many, but a lot fewer than just a few years ago. 

Thus, a coach today has to be even more of an x and o's person, teacher, motivator, shrink, in-game tactician alumni relationship builder and more!  At GW, you also have to be confident that you can get your kids a better slice of the NIL dollars surely dangling someplace else. 

More than CC, I worry a lot more about the dynamics of NIL, the rich getting richer in terms of TV and booster money, tourney slots, and eventual efforts to really squeeze most of the mid-majors into a development league for the P6 with a few crumbs heading back our way.   

I think it's going to take five-to-ten years to determine who are the best coaches in this environment.  The ones who can balance most of these demands will rise to the top.  Many looking good now may not look so good a few years later.  It's a different sport and not professional, but how often do we see new NHL coaches come in new, light a fire under a team, bring them playoff success or even a Cup--then their teams no longer respond even a year or two later and they get fired.  Were they brilliant when they got hired, get stupid, or just not learn to adapt?   For now, the only thing I really have is patience.  

I was hoping to hear CC's thoughts postgame but nothing was posted. I'm sure it will end up getting posted after another game or two will have passed by which point it will no longer be relevant. It's incredible that year after year the school continues to be so cavalier with this.

I too am a fan of what CC has done to improve the team this year and build support off the court, but no one coaches a perfect game. The one thing that stuck out from Saturday was him putting Stretch in for a three minute period in the first half and then another three minute period in the second half when La Salle opted to go small (without Jocius). Akingbola is definitely one of the better defenders on the team, but it felt like the wrong time to play him especially since he isn't much of an offensive threat. After that point, Brickus put him on skates and made a layup and then Shepherd hit a 3 as Stretch failed to close out. To Akingbola's credit, he held up a lot better in the three minutes after halftime that the Explorers went small, but this is more of a comment about why he was subbed in than him doing something right or wrong. It felt like a bad matchup thing on both sides of the ball and GW only fell behind more after both occurrences.

I rewatched a few parts of the game here and there. The offense wasn't as bad as I remember it being. JB and Jun both had possessions where they could have given up the ball, but I noticed that in the first half GW missed roughly seven or so shots in transition/on a fast break. Max missed a 3, Jun took a contested midrange, Jacoi missed a 3, Jacoi/Trey missed a layup off a good steal from Jacoi, JB missed a layup, Zam missed a 3, Jun had a turnover in transition before halftime. GW is up at the break and feeling a little better if even half of those go down. I didn't see many chances in transition in the second half, but they were certainly there before halftime.

Defensively, it felt like when La Salle burned GW many times it was either: 1) a second GW defender came to help when honestly it wasn't needed and then no one picked up the La Salle player left open as a result or 2) when any La Salle player drove into the paint way too many players collapsed leaving the perimeter completely exposed. A few GW guys sagged off their man too much along the perimeter but weren't really doing anything in the paint to excuse that. La Salle on the other hand didn't leave GW's perimeter left as unguarded so most threes that GW shot were actually contested. It's a combination of execution, youth, and communication but it also seems GW overdoes bringing help defenders on that side of the ball. Brickus was feeling it at the end of the game (I think he made four shots in a row), but was also left open on many of those chances.

On the rewatch, Trey did actually hold up a bit better defensively on some possessions than I originally saw, but Max was rough defensively, whether it was being blown by a La Salle player or closing out late. I do think he can turn it around though.
 

Gwmayhem, I hate to break it to you but the whole notion of "outcoaching" is a farcical one in about 95% of games. Ask coaches. If you knew how both teams prepared and scouted you would know this. With modern analytics and Synergy, there aren't many secrets. What usually happens is that someone outperforms or underperforms and that is what decides games. There is an old expression that you should learn - "It's not about the X's and O's but the Jimmies and the Joes." It is true more than ever in this age of NIL, transfers, etc. You need to get with the times. This isn't 40 years ago when coaches had players for 4 years so they could make adjustments on the fly that would surprise the other coach because analytics and great scouting techniques did not exist. The game has changed and I suggest you learn to change with it.

Before Gwmayhem misrepresents what I am saying, I am not saying coaches never have any influence or don't decide any games. But I think Gwmayhem way overstates their influence in deciding most games on game day including what we saw on Saturday. The much more probable answer is we had poor execution because we have shown the ability to execute against more talented teams than La Salle. To be fair, you will never see me come on here and say CC outcoached the other coach. It works both ways. 

Again, I'd suggest you talk to a lot of coaches about the notion of "outcoaching". Most will laugh and no one goes around privately crowing about how they outcoached the other guy on game day. Maybe out-recruited is as close as you will hear. If you defend, rebound, don't turn the ball over, and make shots you win. When you don't do some or all of those things you lose. It's a simple game really. The coach's main value is in recognizing and recruiting talent and employing it in a manner that can be successful for the talents recruited. It is also in day to day player development. What happens on game day is often either dictated well before (talent matchups) or as I mentioned above, underperformance or overperformance.

Last edited by GWRising (1/30/2024 10:24 am)

Every coach has a degree in psychology ... either a real one or one earned from years of dealing with personalities and team dynamics. In fact, coaches spend much time working on the psyche of the team and individuals. John Madden had one of best psychological philosophies which played off of John Wooden's admonition that too much praise and criticism ruin many careers: never let your team get too high or too low. Madden would go the opposite way for his teams so if they won, he hammered them because everyone else was telling them how good they were, and if they lost, he built them up because everyone else was telling them they suck. Seems like a pretty good understanding of sports psychology to me. But none of this really is effectively done on game day but rather in the hours of preparation prior to game day. I also remember a coach saying to me I'll rip your ass in practice like no other but I will never embarrass you on game day in front of your family and friends because it is counter-productive to getting you to perform at a high level. 

As a longtime fan of GW and the game of bball at all levels, the formula for winning is the combo of good coaching, talent, chemistry, and fundamentals. Yes, the buck stops at the top but many factors have to blend to be a winner.

I was struck by how utterly deflated the team looked in the 2nd half of La Salle during one of the timeouts.  They looked like the last place they wanted to be was at Smitty.

IMO, Jacoi, Stretch, and Jun are the only ones playing with any passion.  It needs to spread to everyone else!! Heck Benny is hungrier than many. 

Time to hit the reset button and get fired up!! How bout a few hard fouls (legal of course) and some in rhythm offense.  We need some Joe Mac and Zeek energy.  We can do it!!  I predict some new wrinkles from Coach C.

Last edited by H&R..71 (1/30/2024 5:48 pm)