Online!
First practice of the year today. Info about scheduling, transfers, etc.
Offline
Really good job by Abe.
Offline
jf wrote:
Really good job by Abe.
Agree. Terrific report
Offline
Excellent update Abe, thanks.
Offline
Bravo Abe Rothstein.
Some real promise with talent in house. Very eager to see both Dayan but also Trey and Drumgoole among the newest additions:
F Gerald Drumgoole (Delaware) averaged nearly 14 points per game last season on 43% from the field and 37% from beyond the arc.
Trey Moss (William and Mary) will be competing for the starting shooting guard position with fellow Trey, Trey Autry. Moss averaged 13.5 PPG last season on over 41% FG.
Last edited by The Dude (9/24/2024 10:12 am)
Offline
Abe, one of the things that many of us here can provide perspective on is the wide array of talent, knowledge and enthusiasm that students covering the team have brought to the table. I've always felt that those serving in this capacity ought to at least be solid communicators who display a notable passion for GW basketball. The knowledge is something that could always be learned over time, but I often considered it a bonus when someone possessing strong knowledge of GW basketball was apparent from the start. This all gets magnified after considering that there truly isn't any other local media following the team. The coverage from WRGW and The Hatchet becomes even more valuable than that from student outlets at many other schools.
To this end, I would like to congratulate you, and David Korn before you, on the outstanding work you've provided and will continue to provide (at least in your case). Am sure I am forgetting others from the recent past who should also be commended. Your report on the official opening day of practice was extremely well done and a great example of what I am referencing. As I had alluded, there have been others who have come before you who frankly should never have been assigned to cover the team (perhaps they were the only ones who expressed interest at the time). Please keep up the great work and keep those reports coming!
Offline
Gwmayhem - hopefully you and others read the part about scheduling. I think it fairly articulates how and why GW came to the OOC schedule it did and how it might change in the future if our performance improves. I would note the CC has been 100% consistent in his explanation of scheduling on at least three separate occasions - to me personally, to the folks that attended the open practice, and now to Abe. You may not like the schedule but at least you have to credit CC for probably giving the most complete explanation that I can recall any GW coach ever giving about scheduling.
Online!
Thank you to all for your support. I passed this message along to David, and we are both more than appreciative. We look forward to providing you all with coverage as the season goes along! Thank you all for following!!!
Offline
GWRising wrote:
Gwmayhem - hopefully you and others read the part about scheduling. I think it fairly articulates how and why GW came to the OOC schedule it did and how it might change in the future if our performance improves. I would note the CC has been 100% consistent in his explanation of scheduling on at least three separate occasions - to me personally, to the folks that attended the open practice, and now to Abe. You may not like the schedule but at least you have to credit CC for probably giving the most complete explanation that I can recall any GW coach ever giving about scheduling.
GWRising, I am all aboard the CC train on many issues but not when it comes to scheduling. Of last year's OOC, he points out that the conference wants all of its members to win at least 80% of its OOC games so "we did our part." Maybe the league did not get the memo because just 20% of its members reached this goal with Dayton and George Mason also meting this threshold. And if you'd like to know why others failed to meet this goal, lok at some of the games they scheduled:
Davidson: Clemson, St. Mary's (and beat Maryland)
Duquesne: Princeton, Nebraska, St. Mary's
Fordham: Cornell, St. John's, Tulane
LaSalle: Duke, Miami, Big 5 games
Loyola: Florida Atlantic, Creighton, Tulsa, USF
UMASS: Harvard, Georgia Tech (and beat West Virginia)
URI: Northwestern, Washington State, Providence, Charleston
Richmond: BC, Colorado, Wichita State, Florida
SJU: Kentucky, Charleston, Princeton, Big 5 games
SLU: Vermont, NC State, Drake, Wichita State
SBU: Auburn, FL Atlantic, (and beat Oklahoma State)
VCU: McNeese, Iowa State, Memphis
It stands to reason that most A10 schools, with respect to scheduling, were more focused on making sure their effective strength of schedule was such that they would be a Q2 team or better entering conference play than they were reaching an .800+ winning percentage. GW by contrast goes 11-2 and still winds up being a Q3 team largely due to not having any quality wins.
And once again, I'll bring up what a disservice last year's OOC, and this year's OOC, is to our players. Granted that we are playing in a higher quality holiday tournament compared to last year but aside from this event, there is no team close to a Hofstra let alone a South Carolina on this year's schedule. Our players deserve the same 3-4 OOC opportunities to play in games that will get their pulses racing that all other A10 schools enjoy.
Offline
How about if we look at this year's OOC schedule versus P5 and notable mid-majors ...
Davidson - Arizona (MTE), Bowling Green (A), Charlotte and Temple (A)
Dayton - Northwestern, UNC (MTE), Marquette, UNLV, Cincinnati (A)
Duquesne - Princeton (neutral), at DePaul
Fordham - St. Johns (A), Seton Hall (A), Penn State (MTE)
George Mason - Marquette (A), Duke (A)
La Salle - Temple (A), UNC (A)
Loyola - Princeton (A), Tulsa, South Florida
Massachusetts - West Virginia (A), Hofstra, Temple (MTE), Arizona St. (neutral)
Rhode Island - Providence, Temple (neutral)
Richmond - Charlotte (A), Auburn (A)
St. Bonaventure - Providence (neutral), Utah State (MTE)
St. Joseph's - Villanova (Big5), Texas Tech (MTE), Va Tech (neutral), Princeton
St. Louis - Santa Clara (neutral), Wichita State (neutral)
VCU - Boston College (neutral), Seton Hall (MTE), Colorado State (A), New Mexico (A)
Note: I did not look at who they might play in later rounds of MTE only who they were guaranteed to play.
A couple of interesting observations ...
1. Nobody besides Dayton, VCU and St. Josephs and maybe Fordham and UMass plays 3-4 OOC games that get their players pulses racing. About half the league has 1-2.
2. Of the games listed 16/41 are on the road and 16/41 are at neutral sites. That means only 22% of these games are home games. Several of the away games will likely be lopsided losses ... Mason's 2 games (at Marquette and at Duke), LaSalle at UNC so the question is do these games really help the league? The answer so far has been a resounding no given the number of bids received in recent years. Playing most or all of your games on the road or at neutral sites is not a recipe for OOC success as a league. So the question becomes does a blowout loss to UNC help you more than a blowout win over a bottom feeder at home? Under the new metrics the answer is likely not much if at all. So if you are in a one bid or two bid league (we are), your best bet is to pile up wins and try to be good in conference unless you are playing for an NCAA seed. By the way, there is no evidence that scheduling between 2 and 3 more tougher OOC games will mean you will be better in conference. How did URI, Davidson, Fordham, St. Louis and La Salle do last year? I'll tell you ... they won 1 or 2 more conference games than we did mostly without the injuries and the youth.
I say win first then we can talk about upgrading the schedule. Otherwise, we are just whistling past the graveyard.
Offline
GWRising wrote:
How about if we look at this year's OOC schedule versus P5 and notable mid-majors ...
Davidson - Arizona (MTE), Bowling Green (A), Charlotte and Temple (A)
Dayton - Northwestern, UNC (MTE), Marquette, UNLV, Cincinnati (A)
Duquesne - Princeton (neutral), at DePaul
Fordham - St. Johns (A), Seton Hall (A), Penn State (MTE)
George Mason - Marquette (A), Duke (A)
La Salle - Temple (A), UNC (A)
Loyola - Princeton (A), Tulsa, South Florida
Massachusetts - West Virginia (A), Hofstra, Temple (MTE), Arizona St. (neutral)
Rhode Island - Providence, Temple (neutral)
Richmond - Charlotte (A), Auburn (A)
St. Bonaventure - Providence (neutral), Utah State (MTE)
St. Joseph's - Villanova (Big5), Texas Tech (MTE), Va Tech (neutral), Princeton
St. Louis - Santa Clara (neutral), Wichita State (neutral)
VCU - Boston College (neutral), Seton Hall (MTE), Colorado State (A), New Mexico (A)
Note: I did not look at who they might play in later rounds of MTE only who they were guaranteed to play.
A couple of interesting observations ...
1. Nobody besides Dayton, VCU and St. Josephs and maybe Fordham and UMass plays 3-4 OOC games that get their players pulses racing. About half the league has 1-2.
2. Of the games listed 16/41 are on the road and 16/41 are at neutral sites. That means only 22% of these games are home games. Several of the away games will likely be lopsided losses ... Mason's 2 games (at Marquette and at Duke), LaSalle at UNC so the question is do these games really help the league? The answer so far has been a resounding no given the number of bids received in recent years. Playing most or all of your games on the road or at neutral sites is not a recipe for OOC success as a league. So the question becomes does a blowout loss to UNC help you more than a blowout win over a bottom feeder at home? Under the new metrics the answer is likely not much if at all. So if you are in a one bid or two bid league (we are), your best bet is to pile up wins and try to be good in conference unless you are playing for an NCAA seed. By the way, there is no evidence that scheduling between 2 and 3 more tougher OOC games will mean you will be better in conference. How did URI, Davidson, Fordham, St. Louis and La Salle do last year? I'll tell you ... they won 1 or 2 more conference games than we did mostly without the injuries and the youth.
I say win first then we can talk about upgrading the schedule. Otherwise, we are just whistling past the graveyard.
So you've noted at least 2 games next to every other A10 school but if you had included GW, there would have only been one team listed (Kansas State). Just about half of the A10 schools play at least three such games. These are the games that you've noted. We can cherry pick schools if you'd like. Richmond tested itself in last year's OOC, took more losses than GW did, then started out 8-0 in conference to a 15-3 record. They were THE surprise team in the league last season.
And again, you are making this about postseason chances whereas I am making this about the players. You're close to the team. Go ask the players how they would feel about having a chance to play at UNC. Tell me which ones would not feel excited by that opportunity. Or ask them their thoughts about the schedule. Players don't want to lose but they do want to be challenged. Not every game. But more often than three games in four days over the course of two months.
Offline
Players do not want to get embarrassed on ESPN Sports Center on a 24 hour loop. A 30-40 point loss on the road does nothing for anyone's self-esteem or help provide a lesson that will help the team win down the road. There is nothing to be learned from losing badly to a team that is just much more talented than you. And there is nothing to suggest right now that such a game if played wouldn't have that result. We need proof of performance first.
Until we have a team that is reasonably able to at least compete at that level, no one is thinking about playing UNC or Duke (or similar) I promise. When the results change, I will be the first one to suggest we step up in weight class. CC has already said as much. Build the program first. The schedule will take care of itself later.
Offline
Trust the process, there's a plan in place for a full turnaround
No point in crying about the schedule as the program rebuilds
Offline
Rising:
1) Glad you know the outcome (a 30-40 point loss) before the ball is tipped. I agree that nobody enjoys getting embarrassed yet at the same time, competitive athletes want to be challenged. Plus, my point isn't to schedule more Top 10 teams. I could list maybe 70 programs that would be strong additions to the schedule where a blowout loss would be far from a certainty. Our guys will be challenged over a 4 day period in the Virgin Islands. They will likely be up for playing at American. After that, crickets.
2) If it's proof of performance you're seeking, look no further than last year's 11-2 OOC record. This team (and granted there are many new players this season but won't this be the case most every year from here on in?) proved it could defeat a high percentage of lesser opponents. It's two OOC losses were to teams with higher NET rankings (though UIC finished 186 to GW's 192). Injuries played a major role in their disappointing conference play. After considering how disappointing GW's OOC seasons played out for several seasons preceding last year, I'd say that GW did take a step up last year by beating the teams they were supposed to beat. So are you saying that largely because of last year's injuries, we once again need to demonstrate proof of performance in the OOC?
Offline
The Dude wrote:
Trust the process, there's a plan in place for a full turnaround
No point in crying about the schedule as the program rebuilds
This is a needless post. Nobody is crying about the schedule. We are having a discussion about it. If you're going to contribute to the discussion, please try to do so in a constructive way.
Offline
Gwmayhem wrote:
Rising:
1) Glad you know the outcome (a 30-40 point loss) before the ball is tipped. I agree that nobody enjoys getting embarrassed yet at the same time, competitive athletes want to be challenged. Plus, my point isn't to schedule more Top 10 teams. I could list maybe 70 programs that would be strong additions to the schedule where a blowout loss would be far from a certainty. Our guys will be challenged over a 4 day period in the Virgin Islands. They will likely be up for playing at American. After that, crickets.
2) If it's proof of performance you're seeking, look no further than last year's 11-2 OOC record. This team (and granted there are many new players this season but won't this be the case most every year from here on in?) proved it could defeat a high percentage of lesser opponents. It's two OOC losses were to teams with higher NET rankings (though UIC finished 186 to GW's 192). Injuries played a major role in their disappointing conference play. After considering how disappointing GW's OOC seasons played out for several seasons preceding last year, I'd say that GW did take a step up last year by beating the teams they were supposed to beat. So are you saying that largely because of last year's injuries, we once again need to demonstrate proof of performance in the OOC?
1. So Duke isn't beating GW by at least 30 at home because that's where such a game would be played? If you recall, Duke beat a much better GW team coached by Mike Jarvis by that exact margin in 1994. Sure, GW could pull a surprise and keep it closer but I doubt it. You forget that everyone was amped up when we kept it close at Maryland a few years ago. How did that work out? Moral victories are for the fans not the players/coaches.
2. I am talking about putting together a complete season where we win 20+ games. We might have been on our way towards that last year but injuries and youth derailed it. You have to establish winning as a standard first so that players expect to win. That happens over the course of an entire season, not just 13 games. After that, they are ready to step up in competition and momentary set backs don't become long losing streaks. The simple fact is to date under the last 3 coaches we have not established a winning program. Hopefully, that happens this year and I think it can. Then you can start to talk about how GW needs to test itself against better competition.
All of us (players, coaches, GW Admin., alumni, fans). are starved for winning and I don't think at this point anyone cares if we beat a bunch of low majors. Just win baby!
Last edited by GWRising (9/26/2024 11:26 am)
Online!
Nobody wants to watch us lose by 40 on the road to a power conference team. But there are many, many teams that fall between nationally ranked teams and the very bottom of the KenPom ratings, scads of whom are located within a couple of hundred miles from DC.
Offline
Long Suffering Fan wrote:
Nobody wants to watch us lose by 40 on the road to a power conference team. But there are many, many teams that fall between nationally ranked teams and the very bottom of the KenPom ratings, scads of whom are located within a couple of hundred miles from DC.
Yes, there are. But please tell me what we gain by playing them until we have established a program on solid foundation? They won't help us with our post-season chances. They don't really move the needle net ranking wise. We'd likely have to win the A-10 to do that. As discussed before, there is no guarantee they'd help with our competitive level in conference. I just don't see the upside right now other than providing fans with more of a household name.
Offline
Rising, do you seriously believe that swapping out three games against teams ranked 250 or worse in exchange for three games against teams ranked between 60-150 would mean nothing to the players? That the players would be just as excited, to play this year's schedule as they would that hypothetical one?
You're entitled to your opinion but I can practically assure you that players with any competitive juices whatsoever would rather be tested against better but winnable competition than teams who would consider it moral victories to stay within 10 points of GW.