Look, obviously we didn't have a problem with it last year right?
The narrative last year was that we were a tremendous destination with a stable coach, good culture, and great system for individuals to thrive in during their last year(s) of eligibility.
So the real question is... which one is more accurate and actually applies to us? I think that's the most important question that needs to be asked right now.
I could care less... as i'm sure you could care less... what ridiculous spin is being put on this 41 point loss. All of the issues we've had all year weren't exposed as badly, previously, because (as an example) William and Mary wasn't as good as VCU and our conference right now clearly isn't all that good, IMO. And, personally, i have a much bigger problem with the William and Mary game, again as an example, than i do with this result. The William and Mary game was winnable... and we did NOTHING to allow ourselves to win it.
This game was a foregone conclusion..... make whatever adjustments you wanted.... and if we lost by 27 as opposed to 41 cause we went zone or something.... I wouldn't feel any better.
My opinion, personally, as i think most people here feel..... is that this year is going to be a more accurate reflection of what this looks like for us moving forward than last year. This isn't a system that you can just have rotatable puzzle pieces... and it's clear by now that we don't adapt quickly to having multiple (or even a single) problem(s) to solve.
I care less that this is the most reasonable conclusion as I do that we likely aren't really willing to admit that this is the case and try to come up with a plan to solve it moving forward that doesn't involve us moving to a scholarship-less conference or something (if those even exist anymore).