jf wrote:

Really good job by Abe.

 
Agree. Terrific report

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)

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!

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!!!

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.

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. 

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?

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)

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.