Count me in as a fan who went through a disappointing season but is ready for some NIT Fever.  Would love to re-live 2016.

I have confirmed that everyone will be available subject to any health concerns.

When I think of our NIT run, one of the indelible images is Matt Hart hitting that Logo three in which everyone knew it was in as soon as it left his hand.

Tonight I see Matt Hart getting some press (for being UVA’s challenge specialist). Maybe that’s a good omen?

https://sports.yahoo.com/mens-college-basketball/article/2026-ncaa-tournament-will-feature-a-new-and-potentially-crucial-element-the-coachs-challenge-183306502.html

My hope for this NIT appearance is that we take more higher percentage two point shots and free throws and less three point shots.  This offense would work well with four shooters who can space the floor and knock down 40%-45%+ of their threes.  This works in the NBA and maybe at a select number of college programs.  While we do have outside shooters, we have lacked the consistency to make it work.  Our offensive efficiency numbers have more to do with pace than three point percentage.  Plus, that rating has come down considerably since we entered into conference play.  

This is not to suggest that the three point shot should be abandoned.  It simply should not be heavily relied upon.  There is a sweet spot for this team when three point attempts for a game is around the low 20's.  When we head into the 30's and higher, it's often a sign that the team has fallen behind with many of these attempts becoming poor looks to try to get back into the game.  Or, the team is having difficulty hanging onto a big lead, with so many lower percentage missed shots contributing mightily to our opponents' comebacks.

The irony is that we have in Rafael Castro one of the school's highest FG % shooters ever and yet we don't go to him nearly enough.  We have penetrators like Autry (when he makes up his mind that he's going to play this way), Wu, Jean, Garrett, and Christian who know how to get to the line (admittedly not always a great thing in the cases of Wu and Christian) to earn easy points and yet we don't do this nearly enough.  This team is enamored with the three point shot which has proven to be a temptation that doesn't work out nearly enough.

Gwmayhem wrote:

My hope for this NIT appearance is that we take more higher percentage two point shots and free throws and less three point shots.  This offense would work well with four shooters who can space the floor and knock down 40%-45%+ of their threes.  This works in the NBA and maybe at a select number of college programs.  While we do have outside shooters, we have lacked the consistency to make it work.  Our offensive efficiency numbers have more to do with pace than three point percentage.  Plus, that rating has come down considerably since we entered into conference play.  

This is not to suggest that the three point shot should be abandoned.  It simply should not be heavily relied upon.  There is a sweet spot for this team when three point attempts for a game is around the low 20's.  When we head into the 30's and higher, it's often a sign that the team has fallen behind with many of these attempts becoming poor looks to try to get back into the game.  Or, the team is having difficulty hanging onto a big lead, with so many lower percentage missed shots contributing mightily to our opponents' comebacks.
.

You are preaching to the choir. Agree 100% and have been saying it all year (and last year!). Where you are way off is thinking there’s even a remote chance of Caputo shifting strategy. He’s chosen to die on this hill, and made that clear.  That’s why he led a significantly above average talented team to one of the single biggest underperformances against expectations in program history.

Seems weird to me for some of you to complain about the structure of our offense when it was literally the most efficient offense GW has ever had (or at least in the 30 years KenPom has stats for). 

We averaged 1.176 points per possession. 

The game has changed and I’m fine with us shooting threes as long as it leads to an offense that scores more per possession and can get good shots late in games. It also opens things up for Slim and Hunger.

Our problem was the defensive efficiency and, especially, ability to get stops late in games.

Free Quebec wrote:

Seems weird to me for some of you to complain about the structure of our offense when it was literally the most efficient offense GW has ever had (or at least in the 30 years KenPom has stats for).

We averaged 1.176 points per possession.

The game has changed and I’m fine with us shooting threes as long as it leads to an offense that scores more per possession and can get good shots late in games. It also opens things up for Slim and Hunger.

Our problem was the defensive efficiency and, especially, ability to get stops late in games.

What's weird to me is getting so caught up in efficiency rankings that you lose sight of the bigger picture which is winning and losing basketball games.  We just nearly blew a 24 point lead to Fordham after having missed 8 consecutive three point attempts in the second half.  We did blow a 21 point lead to St. Louis after shooting an abysmal percentage from 3 in the second half.  DC Native's hunch is likely to be true as players are more tired during the second halves of games which often leads to subpar shooting from deep.  And, despite efficiency rankings, we were OK at shooting 3's but not elite by a mile.

Getting caught up in efficiency ratings means that blowing out teams like AU, Maine and ODU is more helpful than losing competitively to McNeese, St. Louis and Dayton is hurtful.  It means making the NIT field over Duquesne, a team with a better conference record who beat GW head-to-head, so I'm unwilling to suggest that there's no place for them.  Nevertheless, it's conceivable that we could have won 3 or 4 of these close games we lost by relying less on three point shooting and we'd have ended up with a better record and arguably, worse offensive efficiency.  And somehow, that might have made those who cling to these rankings less satisfied despite the extra wins.
 

Better practice free throws 24 hours a day. Also a good time for coach to learn how to make second half adjustments.

Rough first day of the NIT for the A10. Hopefully tomorrow is better.

Dayton and St Joe's both get road wins. The A10 March to Indy continues...