I seem to recall reading somewhere that Lamb recruits do not have to take the SAT in order to be admitted to Lamb U.
Meanwhile getting into UR not only requires the SAT, a high score on the test is required.
Coach Mooney's Long Term Plan
- Thread starter 9Legs
- Start date
Meanwhile getting into UR not only requires the SAT, a high score on the test is required.
Tank? No. But change when things are clearly not going well? I do expect that.
If they want to play basketball they have to take the SAT (or ACT). It's an NCAA requirement.
Agreed, but it is easy to make the sell when we are definitively there best basketball offer. The difference between the average recruiters and the really good recruiters is that the really good recruiters get kids who have other equal or better offers. And that occurs at all levels of basketball. We aren't snagging kids who have Duke and Kansas offers (Top 100 kids), but we certainly should be getting kids who are offered by other A-10 schools, MVC schools, and yes many of the lower tier BCS programs (Virginia Tech, Boston College, Auburn, Alabama, etc...).
When we are snagging kids who other only offers are Northern Kentucky, Siena, or UT Martin that is not going to get us where we need to be.
I do agree that DeMonte could be a difference making recruit. Not only was he highly sought after with multiple BCS offers, but he is out their as an ambassador for the program, both directly and indirectly helping us to recruit other kids. Sherod as well had some big offers (Texas Tech, Virginia Tech) and was really getting interest when he signed. Recruiting is contagious, if you recruit good kids, other good kids are going to want to play with them.
I mean just look at what Shaka did down on Broad Street, he won, got better recruits, won more and continued to get better and better recruits. Yes, VCU has some academics issues that allow them to fish in a deeper pool, but when we won in 2010, 2011 we weren't able to translate that into getting more high profiled recruits. That was a huge missed opportunity that has kept us mired in this good but not good enough status for the past 4 years. We should have been getting Buckingham and Sherod type players in 2012. Glad we are getting them now, but frustrating that it took 4 years of Diekvoss, Singleton, Smithen like players to arrive here. Our team would look a lot different, a lot deeper, if we hadn't thrown away those schollies on players that we knew (or should have known) were basically shots in the dark the moment we signed them.
I'm still optimistic about our season and the league. Let's take as an assumption (as much as we hate it) that VCU could be the class of the A10 with their current W-L record. Assuming so, we banged around with them to an overtime loss where we clearly didn't play our best game (bad technical, bad FT shooting, bad 3pt shooting).
We can hang with anyone in the league, we just need to get our mojo going.
We can hang with anyone in the league, we just need to get our mojo going.
Buckingham, Sherod, and now Godwin. they fall in the special circumstances category, like Andrew White. I know we all love UR, but we don't offer "BIG TIME" college basketball like the P5 do. that's just a fact. kids don't grow up dreaming about playing at a 3,000 student school with really hard classes.
it's very rare that we land a kid that a P5 school really wants. and by really wants, I don't just mean they offered. some offers are very different from others. we've had offers out to kids but if you slow-play a kid he understands. kids want to go where they're really wanted, and will generally go to the highest level they're really wanted at.
the special circumstance is usually location. we can land a big time kid if he wants to be in this area for family or friends. problem is it's a very small universe of talent. they have to be relatively local, great players, and strong academically with good character. and we still have to beat out the local teams and high majors that come calling.
it's very rare that we land a kid that a P5 school really wants. and by really wants, I don't just mean they offered. some offers are very different from others. we've had offers out to kids but if you slow-play a kid he understands. kids want to go where they're really wanted, and will generally go to the highest level they're really wanted at.
the special circumstance is usually location. we can land a big time kid if he wants to be in this area for family or friends. problem is it's a very small universe of talent. they have to be relatively local, great players, and strong academically with good character. and we still have to beat out the local teams and high majors that come calling.
spiderman, you are right. One factor, while not overlooked, is not mentioned nearly enough. I think that the New Robins Center has helped immensely in our recruiting. It is loud, beautiful, and makes games much more exciting. For the vdu game, I invited a fraternity brother from Portsmouth who had not ben there for several years. He was greatly impressed and commented that it was great entertainment. It really is! OSC
The real problem is we need non-alumni fans to fill the Robins Center, We'll only get non-alumni fans by offering a great environment (which I the school has done) but most importantly a winning top notch team. We get more fans, we get more exposure, more exposure we get better recruits and the circle goes on. We've pretty much burnt/wasted the sweet 16 team momentum one year to rebuild is certainly understandable, maybe even two but 5 to get back to national exposure, way too long. For a school like us we need to get the best players we can and adjust the system to better meet their skills, not visa versa, and spend an inordinate amount of time working on the player's skills.
I really don't care if we can't out-recruit a P5 team. I want us to be out-recruiting Dayton, Rhode Island, VCU, St. Joe's and Davidson. Is that too much to ask?
spiderjpo, From paper it's looks like we have a good recruiting class, but to count on these freshman to turn around a program in their first year is living in a fantasy land. They'll need time and experience and work, a lot of work, to get where I'm hoping they want to be. How many next years are you willing to put up with.
To say our program needs to be turned around is an incredibly huge exaggeration. To make the NCAAs consistently we need to be only marginally better than we currently are. Before we lost Ced and Dwill 2 years ago we were in the discussion for an at large. We win just 1 more game last year and we dance. We are not that far away from making the NCAAs more often than not (we were very close to making it 4 out of 6 years), there is just a small hump we need to get over.
I agree with your overall sentiment. Clearly the program does not need to be turned around. We are competitive, highly competitive, I might add on a year in year out basis. I do disagree about how close we were to the NCAA the past 4 years. I only count 1 year where we were close and that is last year. The previous 3 years we didn't even get an NIT bid and if you don't get an NIT bid, you can't say with a straight face that we were close to make the NCAA.
But yes, the hump is small not large. Quit throwing away years and schollies year after year on the Diekvoss's of the world and I think we will be there.
I agree with you. But the problem is that we always seem to fall short when we really need to win. VCU and St. Joe's this year. Wake, Northeastern, at GW last year. I could go on and on. If we'd win one of those games last year and even one this year, the conversation might be different. But we basically don't win any pick-em type games, except against VCU. And we couldn't even beat them at home this year.
If we beat Davidson tonight, then go on the road and beat GW and Bona this week, maybe I'll be singing a different tune. But history suggests we will lose both of those road games by 5 or 6 points and then be talking about a bunch of "what-ifs" yet again.
Exactly, we only need to be slightly better (which is one of the reasons there are so many frustrated fans, we are always close but never seem to quite get there). We just need these recruits to give us a little push so that we win the close games we have lost in the past, not completely turn our program around.
Ok then lets say change turn the program around to take the next step if that makes you feel better. Remember this year we lose 3 starters (or top 7) and the next three are juniors. Unless PF takes a big step (and I hope and pray he does) we don't have any C or PFs ready to step in. Everyday I hope CM proves me to be a basketball idiot. Also I agree if you don't make the NIT you were never really on the bubble.
Here are 5 articles from 2014 talking about us being on the bubble/in the NCAAs as an at large. Depending on when they were written, some of them talk about how losing Ced caused us to get bounced off the bubble.
http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-ba...lifornia-baylor-ncaa-tournament-march-madness
http://www.vanquishthefoe.com/byu-c...nt-bracketology-update-can-byu-make-the-field
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/04/ncaa-tournament-bubble-teams-providence-fsu_n_4896487.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ghlights-big-tens-on-the-fence-teams/5551975/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rks-to-bounce-back-from-season-ending-injury/
It may be hard to remember (especially with the way the season ended), but we were an at-large caliber team in 2014 before we lost Ced and Dwill.
We were on the bubble when we lost Ced, but we also had 9 or 10 games left. I suspect we would not have made the tourney even with him.
After we lost Ced, we were 5-6 down the stretch and ended up 19-14. We only need to win 2 of those games to be 21-12 and we are in the tournament I suspect.
It really is that kind of margin that matters. Incremental improvements may not seem exciting but they make a difference.
From what I am hearing, RPI requires no SAT scores from any applicant. Breathing seems to be the only qualification now.
So we really went from being a NCAA caliber team to nothing, Ced was good, (Dwill had become a time filler) so you're saying losing Ced threw us off the bubble and out of the NIT? I was right there at the time but looking back it doesn't seem likely.
We would have needed at least 2 more wins, because we were nowhere near the bubble at the end of the season. We also would have needed to win all 5 of the games that we did actually win, and i don't think you can automatically assume that we would have won them with Ced just because we won them without him.
It's impossible to prove a negative obviously, I'm merely stating that we were definitely in the discussion before Ced went down and we slid precipitously from there. It's not unreasonable to think that we could have gone 7-4 down that stretch and finished with a decent RPI (we still ended up at 73).
I don't think it would have made a difference. After Ced got hurt, we lost to GW by 8 (SDJ had 25 points – Ced would have had to replace most of those points and still help us find more); Mason by 9 after scoring about 5 points in the first half; Rhody by 23; VCU by 6 (MAYBE we win that one); and Dayton by 12. Then we beat Duquesne in the A-10 and lost to VCU by 18.
Before Ced got hurt our offensive efficiency was 105.8, after it got hurt it was 98.9 which is a drop of about ~140 places in the overall offensive rankings. We similarly dropped ~80 places in defensive efficiency. We were a much, much worse team without Ced and DWill.
Ced either scored or assisted 60% of our points. He was top 3 in the A10 in points per game, assist rate, steal rate, and fouls drawn per 40 minutes. He essentially was our offense and was a huge asset on defense as well. There are very few players, if any, who are more important to their team's overall performance than Ced was to our 2013-2014 team.
Last edited:
Of course we were a worse team without Ced, but my question remains: Which of those games that we lost (only two that were particularly close) would you have expected to win with Ced? I'll remind you that we lost to Ohio, Wake and Bona (by 14) WITH him, so it's not like we were going to go 11-0 had he not been hurt.
I think we would have had 3 more wins. All the games would look completely different with Ced playing.
It is not as simple as isolating a player's box score and saying 'what would happen if Ced played here instead' but let's look at SDJ's performance as a freshmen in some of these games we lost. SDJ went 1-11 from the field and had 5 turnovers the second time we played VCU. We lost by 6. I am pretty sure Ced would have made a 6 point difference there. Against GW SDJ shot 3-13. And it is not just about points scored, it is about points created/efficiency. Ced was the best distributer in the A10 behind Chaz Williams. He was an incredible ball handler and had a great turnover rate (top 10 in the A10). He made everyone on the court better. And that is just on offense, Ced forced turnovers better than anyone in the A10 not named Briante Weber. I doubt we lose to GMU with Ced. I think two other wins would be highly likely as well.
Last edited:
I like to try to be positive but hate continuing talk about this play or that play different and we win the game or if this or that guy doesn't get injured and season ends up completely different. Losing teams or ones that just get edged out of a tourny bid like to think this way. Enough teams have these issues and the adjustments made by the coach hopefully are the right moves. With Pierre out 1st 11 games, I guess Miller came up big with Dayton going 9-2.
I don't think anyone's arguing that point SJSF, I think the point I and others are making is that we aren't grossly out of the mix here. We are a few plays here and there and a few uninjured players away from being more consistently "good".
We are not as deep or as talented as other programs, so our margin for error is relatively thin. Hopefully it widens.
We are not as deep or as talented as other programs, so our margin for error is relatively thin. Hopefully it widens.
SouthJersey, think I understand what you are getting at; other teams step up when there is an injury to a key player. The one thing that I wish Coach would do is play our younger guys more. It seems like they would then be prepared to step in if needed. Hopefully, he is going to do this going forward. No excuses. OSC
Yes Ulla but look at this .....
Alarming Spider stat that we thought could get better but has gotten worse for A10 play. Percentage of minutes played by the subs.
Below are some A10 squads % for season so far. Concentrating on the better teams and we know the conference as a whole usually play the starters more than the national average.
23.3 St Bonny
25.2 Rhode Is
26.6 UR
26.9 GW
27.9 St Joe
29.6 Davidson
33.1 Dayton
Now the % for just the conference games. I could be slightly off on a few numbers.
27.8 St Bonny
26.9 Rhode Is
15.7 UR
25.2 GW
29.2 St Joe
24.3 Davidson
34.7 Dayton
Yes, DT was out a few games but Dayton had no Pierre for 11 and now playing the bench more with him back. More of the above (4 to 3) are using their bench more now in A10 play. David and UR less and we know how that is working out for them.
Odd but maybe some coaches didn't use the bench as much in non-conference play but confident in what they have instilled in them during practices that time to really see what they have? For the posters in the corner of CM has done a sub par job of quality recruiting, this stat could suggest that.
Bottom line for me is not a good sign especially if you go into the A10 tourny needing 4 wins and 3 in 3 days.
Alarming Spider stat that we thought could get better but has gotten worse for A10 play. Percentage of minutes played by the subs.
Below are some A10 squads % for season so far. Concentrating on the better teams and we know the conference as a whole usually play the starters more than the national average.
23.3 St Bonny
25.2 Rhode Is
26.6 UR
26.9 GW
27.9 St Joe
29.6 Davidson
33.1 Dayton
Now the % for just the conference games. I could be slightly off on a few numbers.
27.8 St Bonny
26.9 Rhode Is
15.7 UR
25.2 GW
29.2 St Joe
24.3 Davidson
34.7 Dayton
Yes, DT was out a few games but Dayton had no Pierre for 11 and now playing the bench more with him back. More of the above (4 to 3) are using their bench more now in A10 play. David and UR less and we know how that is working out for them.
Odd but maybe some coaches didn't use the bench as much in non-conference play but confident in what they have instilled in them during practices that time to really see what they have? For the posters in the corner of CM has done a sub par job of quality recruiting, this stat could suggest that.
Bottom line for me is not a good sign especially if you go into the A10 tourny needing 4 wins and 3 in 3 days.
I won't say "the one thing" because I'd like to see "several" things changed by CM. However, I do agree with you that he needs to play the younger guys more.
You say, "Hopefully, he is going to do this going forward." I say, in spite of what he has said on several occasions, we're stilllllllllllllllll waiting for this to happen. I'll believe it when I see it. Old habits die hard.
Injuries are part of the game and you have to be able to adapt to them. This is why you have a deep roster filled with players who can step in when needed to. Last year, VCU lost Weber to a season ending injury at about the same time we lost Ced, they still made the tourney. Why? Depth.
Similar threads
