This team actually reminds me of a minor league version of the Hobbs glory days teams. 
You knew they were going to come back in pretty much every game they trailed. But they had even more 
athleticism and basketball talent. Two NCAA players plus another drafted.
Hence 16-0 league, 27-3 overall. NCAA appearances (still
a distant dream).
   This team has a good amount athleticism, but not at that level.
Yet, basketball acumen (with several exceptions) certainly late game, and just ability to overcome anything
without folding again seems missing. The winning mentality/focus seems to be missing in crunch time.
   I wouldn't even say current squad was a G-League version of the team. More like Class AA minor league baseball.
   Thrilled if we somehow gel to reach our potential and payroll. But while there's always hope for a turnaround, we're underachieving at the moment.
 

22ndandF wrote:

Free Quebec wrote:

Also meant to add that this team reminds me of the NIT title team from a decade ago, in which the team underachieved its talent during the season and was disappointing (granted we didnt know at the time the impact of all the off court turmoil with the AD, which affected them).

That team was in the top 50 before the loss to DePaul at the end of December and was ranked 75th before postseason, almost exactly where we are today.

Let’s hope we can follow in that team’s footsteps and gel late.

Out of curiosity, in what way(s) does this team remind you of the 2016 team?  Starting 5 of Yuta, Patricio, Tyler, Joe MacDonald and Larson.  Solid at every position.  Other than Castro, this team, not so much.  And I think it's highly debatable that this 2025-26 team is underachieving. At this point in the year, I think it's clear that we are what we are. I think you may just be trolling, but if you are serious, it would be interesting to understand what makes you believe what you wrote.
 

lol.  I’m not trolling.  It reminds of that team only in the sense that it’s ranked around the same, but feels like it’s capable of much more.

Like that team, this one also hit top 50 on KenPom, but suffered some losses it shouldn’t have (got blown out by a bad DePaul team and lost at sub-200 St Louis, went 11-7 in the league - though that team also had more quality wins than this one, including the UVA game). 

The other commonality was that was a great offensive team, but outside the top 100 on defense.

In terms of personnel, I wouldn’t compare them.  That 2016 team had 3 guys who would go on to the NBA in Yuta, Garino, and Cav (though soph year Yuta was not yet near the player he would become). Plus Kevlar and McDonald were solid college players.

But this team has a better bench, and this year’s team’s ability to get to the rim is unparalleled.  We’re shooting 57.7% from 2, which is 31st in the country (despite some high profile misses at times). That team shot only 48.4% inside the arc, which was below the national average (mostly because no one on our bench was good inside the arc, and because Joe Mac took a lot of midrange shots at mediocre efficiency). 

Again, not comparing the personnel, and that old team proved its worth by winning a championship.  Just comparing them as teams ranked about the same for whom we expected more from.

GWRising wrote:

jf wrote:

This team actually reminds me of a minor league version of the Hobbs glory days teams. 
You knew they were going to come back in pretty much every game they trailed. But they had even more 
athleticism and basketball talent. Two NCAA players plus another drafted.
Hence 16-0 league, 27-3 overall. NCAA appearances (still
a distant dream).
   This team has a good amount athleticism, but not at that level.
Yet, basketball acumen (with several exceptions) certainly late game, and just ability to overcome anything
without folding again seems missing. The winning mentality/focus seems to be missing in crunch time.
   I wouldn't even say current squad was a G-League version of the team. More like Class AA minor league baseball.
   Thrilled if we somehow gel to reach our potential and payroll. But while there's always hope for a turnaround, we're underachieving at the moment.
 

 To be blunt, I am not sure that we are underachieving as much as maybe we were overrated. This might be who we are. Good enough to beat you but also not good enough to avoid losing to you versus almost all A-10 opponents. This is the risk you take when you bring in a bunch of transfers and expect them to gel in 15 or 20 games. There could be individual talent but that individual talent has to mesh well. You can see it elsewhere - Syracuse, for example. If we had this team together for 2 years I might like our chances in year 2 a lot better.

You not only see it elsewhere Rising, you see it almost everywhere.  Torvik put together a ranking among major and higher quality midmajor conference schools for returning minutes heading into the season.  There were a few outliers like Northern Iowa and Purdue who returned 72.1% and 69.7% of their player minutes from last season and there are schools such as Arizona, UNC, UVA, Kansas and Tennessee who each returned 22.5% or less.  So far, GW has allocated 51.4% of its minutes to returnees which would put them at about 17th on this preseason list.

Unfortunately, the sport has changed to the point where "we can't expect a group of transfers to gel after 15-20 games" is no longer valid.  It may be that the quality of play diminishes as a result but practically every program has the same turnover issues and is therefore in the same boat.   
 

I know that the conversation has moved away from the game a bit but Marshall made the wrong pass on the play where he threw it out of bounds. I believe it was supposed to go to Autry. Trey immediately came to the bench and was LIVID saying that Marshall didn't run the play properly (for which he later apologized for in the press conference).

As Caputo said in the press conference, they literally run that play in practice every single day but had some different personnel on Monday (maybe because they were missing Bubu?). Even with the different personnel, it seems pretty crazy to botch the play like that. I also appreciate that others have mentioned the next play which was a complete disaster by allowing Mincy to even get the ball (he's a 91% FT shooter) let alone get it with a clear path to an open layup. Poor late game execution has unfortunately been a theme. When is the last time they came back from a late game deficit to win?

Don't know what is preventing us from gelling or getting it together, but all teams have to compete in this environment.
Maybe I'm wrong, but from one website and roster, I counted 8 or even 9 transfers playing for George Mason. They seem to be gelling quite well.
In any case, they and other A-10 teams have plenty of transfers.
  We have some excellent homegrown talent, such as Trey A and Christian--and perhaps injuries will ease and things will click for Ty B.'s talents one day. And we retained Rafael and Garrett who played for GW in previous seasons.
  We decided to redshirt this year's freshmen.
  So it's up to us to gel with our transfers and returnees.
The current college bball environment is terrible.
  But everyone has to live with it--and succeed or fail.
 

Rising, your exact words were "this is the risk you take when you bring in a bunch of transfers and expect them to gel in 15 to 20 games.  If we had this team together for two years, I might like our chances in Year 2 a lot better."

First, by pointing out that over half of our minutes this season have gone to returning players, I am inferring that GW should actually be in a better position than many with respect to gelling, because they have a number of players who have experience playing together.  That said, I can buy the argument that as long as a newcomer is also on the court, it makes gelling more challenging.

However, the problem you've identified is not only not unique to GW but is also pervasive throughout the sport.  What program has the advantages of not having to integrate transfers?  What team is going to stay exactly together from Year 1 to Year 2?  None.  This is why NIL deals should incentivize players to remain at their programs, to bring some continuity back into the sport.

GW has plenty of legitimate disadvantages as a program.  There's no need to fabricate ones that seemingly all programs possess and therefore do not put GW at any real disadvantage over its opposition, in order to explain why the team's play has been inconsistent. 

In looking at the season, we began 5-0.  Four very convincing wins and a close win over a very sound South Florida team.  Then we lost two games in the Caymans to teams that are a combined 31-8 on the season.  We beat a good W&M team to go 8-2.  At this point in the season, I did not read or hear one word about how the team was not gelling.  And, if the team hadn't lost two home games to Delaware and Davidson, it would be 14-5 right now and I don't believe we'd be having this conversation.

You should understand that whether this is your intent or not, it sounds like you are making an excuse for the team.  What exacerbates this is the perception (at least my perception) that you've often made excuses for past GW teams as well.  Personally, I don't believe that this team was overrated and I don't believe that this is the result of so many newcomers being unable to gel properly. I do believe they've come upon a mental hurdle which is clearly affecting their collective confidence.  At the end of the day, it is up to the coaching staff to help pull them through this, and it is of course up to the players to overcome this by executing at a much higher level during crucial situations.