Game #17: George Washington - GameDay!

[MARhody]

Got back from the game last night too late to post, some misc thoughts:

- Officiating. Much has been said about this game in particular, while I prefer to shy away from this topic, feel like last night's effort deserves a few comments. With the team projected as a middle of the pack team at best, the assigned officials both on the road and at home are not going to be the stars of the league. Simple fact. We've seen it already this season, and that was certainly the case last night. A particularly tough stretch early in the second half gave the foul edge 9-4 in favor of the visitors, and even when things "evened out', both teams were in the double bonus mid-way through the half. It did not seem to me that the players were getting chippy and needed to be calmed down. Case in point was Rhody PG getting harassed the entire way up the court, he stops just over half court and absorbs three (THREE!) pushes in the back, when he goes to move forward defender flops and gets the charge call. Things eventually evened out, but it was not a pleasing stretch of basketball to watch...and at some point the players need to adjust, the 5th foul on Powell was indeed unnecessary, frustrated after losing the ball he clips the guys from behind, not much of a foul, but on a night like this when the whistles were flying it was ill advised. Not an excuse for losing the game, but this has to be mentioned.

As an aside, not yet said, is it that our coaches ride the officials more than others and this is why we never seem to catch a break? Baron was notorious for riding them the entire game, too often he rode it too far on the way to getting teed up....and I'm all for expecting excellence and fairness from the whistle, but is the constant dialogue too much and this ends up hurting us? Certainly not suggesting silence, but throwing this out there to see if others feel the same. There was a point when one of the officials during a timeout could clearly be heard saying "that's enough" to the coaching staff....had to be in the back of their mind...?

I disagree with those that say it is the style of play that is bringing on these fouls. GW was playing just as aggressive last night (and other teams in previous games) and it did not seem that they were getting the same type of plays called against them.

- Malone. Caught fire in the second half, took the team on his shoulders and did not disappoint. Could not miss in the 10-12 foot range. Was great to see.

- In Bounding. Trouble all night in-bounding the ball, at one point they had a player caught in a double team on the sideline, coach called TO as official nearest the ball was calling the foul. Officials went with the timeout, then they could not get the ball in-bounds and turned it over on a 5 second call. Not sure what is going on here, play calls seem ok and players aggressively running through but defense seems to be covering (getting lucky?). That was a particularly tough sequence, missed out on a GW foul then lost the ball without getting a shot off.

- Final play. They got an excellent look from the corner, from a tough place on the floor to inbound the ball. Ball rattled the rim three times before popping out, was surprised we ended up with the rebound, happened too quickly to see if there was a foul on the play. This is the end of the floor that we sit at, and my initial reaction is that it may have been clean...though fouls on this play on this night were certainly called, unfortunately not going to hear a whistle at the buzzer. Was too bad, thought the defense on GWs final shot was excellent and they ended up hitting a tough shot after being denied the entire shot clock. Did not mind the quick rush up the floor after that shot as the ball was in Malone's hands in the open court.

- 209. Anyone know what the commotion in section 209 was all about? A little over halfway thru the second half, security went in to speak to a few folks, couldn't tell what it was about. The section wasn't packed so can't imagine they were cheering too loudly?

- Stand Up. In the final minutes, announcer guy pleaded with the crowd to stand up in the final minute, and the crowd responded. Not sure what it is, but I feel like we need this right now, just seems like everyone needs to be told that "it's ok to stand now". I'm one of the first ones up making noise, and I know the student section is as well...it's been a while since we've been in a competitive close game so crowd needs to re-learn the process..? Not kidding here, I feel like most want to stand but aren't sure that it's ok. Don't shoot the messenger here, just reporting what it feels like, perhaps more of this in future games? There's only so much Hurley can do so this is a spot for the announcer to come in..and to be honest, it almost felt like he was surprised they listened. Let's keep this going so before long the crowd won't need the hint.

- Great effort. Overall, despite the outcome, very pleased with the night. The effort was there the entire game, without Aaman they are riding a very tight rotation, and when on the court they are all in a frenzy working hard. Like to see that.

- Close game. Even though they were on the wrong end of the result, feel like these close games are going to pay off down the stretch this year, perhaps as soon as the a-10 tournament. Winning close in St.Louis, losing close here...close in other games, winning of course builds confidence, but being in it to the end is a learning experience, too. In other words, I feel like they worked to have this be a close game and they didn't lose it in the end, GW just executed a little better to steal the win.

Wished they had won, but left knowing they left it all on the floor so I was not disappointed at having made the long ride to the game.

Go Rhody.

[Rhody Guy]

No mention of Ryan Brooks' 0 boards in 17 minutes? That is unacceptable. Was very pleased to see the Ryan standing for the first time in 3 years.

[Obadiah]

To rambone 65, who ever you are, get your facts straight. First, the URI disadvantage on the boards occurred in the first half, GW had us 19-11, but that advantage did not translate into any kind of lead as the score was tied at the half. In the second half, GW had ONE more rebound than URI. Second, URI was not lucky because GW missed so many fouls. GW is not a good shooting team and their FT performance was not a surprise. GW scoring largely came through using size to get easy lay-ups and put backs because the Rams did not match up well against them. In the case where a team does match up well, Xavier for example, the Musketeers manhandled GW and X played that game without their outstanding point, Dee Davis. The proof of this will come when URI plays Xavier. The Rams may lose, but we will give them a better game than GW did. If there was a lucky team last night, it was the one that wears the three corned hat.

[spookydog]

Per Assistant AD Adam Schemm, there were 1600 students at the game last night. I was surprised by the number, I thought there was less. I would have guessed <1000. Maybe just not enough wearing blue.

It was sad to see the entire section on the opposite side from the students (209?) completely empty. How the hell does that happen? Not one person sitting there. Huh?

[ace]

From looking at the box score and play by play line, it was not the officiating that beat URI. Rhody lost this game in the final 5 minutes with their inability to close it out after building a slight lead. This same problem cost them wins in games against Seton Hall and Loyola-Md earlier in the season. Rhode Island led GW 61-56 with 5:01 left when Andre Malone hit a jumper. During the last five minutes of the game, URI went 2-7 from the field and turned it over twice. GW went 4-6 from the field and 1-2 from the ft line in that same span. That was the difference.

But runs like that happen in any game at any time; it's just more noticeable (and yes, frustrating) when it happens at the end. The results reflect the talent on this team. URI had 13 turnovers in the game- two in the last 5 minutes is better than what they were doing throughout. They ended up shooting 50%- less than that in the final 5, but that brought them back closer to their season average. They got the look and shot they wanted at the end, it just didn't go in. Would I be happier if it had? Of course, but that's basketball.

[twisted3829]

Per Assistant AD Adam Schemm, there were 1600 students at the game last night. I was surprised by the number, I thought there was less. I would have guessed <1000. Maybe just not enough wearing blue.

It was sad to see the entire section on the opposite side from the students (209?) completely empty. How the hell does that happen? Not one person sitting there. Huh?

For some reason they let groups or whoever rent the entire section even though no one is ever there. Also it looks like 107, 108, 109 are now student sections as well so students now have 101, 102, 107, 108, 109, 201, 202 and 214 (maybe) and 301

[rodfromcranston]

Nice summary, MARam,
but we've been in numerous close fought games at home
this year. Last night's was far from the first.

[EZBuckets]

Got back from the game last night too late to post, some misc thoughts:

Stand Up. In the final minutes, announcer guy pleaded with the crowd to stand up in the final minute, and the crowd responded. Not sure what it is, but I feel like we need this right now, just seems like everyone needs to be told that "it's ok to stand now". I'm one of the first ones up making noise, and I know the student section is as well...it's been a while since we've been in a competitive close game so crowd needs to re-learn the process..? Not kidding here, I feel like most want to stand but aren't sure that it's ok. Don't shoot the messenger here, just reporting what it feels like, perhaps more of this in future games? There's only so much Hurley can do so this is a spot for the announcer to come in..and to be honest, it almost felt like he was surprised they listened. Let's keep this going so before long the crowd won't need the hint.

You are right. I was shocked that everyone actually stood up (and stayed there).

Since the Ryan opened there have been plenty of great games that came down to the wire and as far back as I can remember, it has always been standard protocol for EVERYONE to stand up in the final minute of a single possession game.

I'm not sure if it's a sign of how things bad have gotten that it now takes some shouting to get everyone up and making noise, but the good news is that there were a few times last night where the Ryan was the loudest I've heard it in a long time and I'm hoping we can build on it over time and create an atmosphere that opponents really don't want to play in.

[Rambone65]

To rambone 65, who ever you are, get your facts straight. First, the URI disadvantage on the boards occurred in the first half, GW had us 19-11, but that advantage did not translate into any kind of lead as the score was tied at the half. In the second half, GW had ONE more rebound than URI. Second, URI was not lucky because GW missed so many fouls. GW is not a good shooting team and their FT performance was not a surprise. GW scoring largely came through using size to get easy lay-ups and put backs because the Rams did not match up well against them. In the case where a team does match up well, Xavier for example, the Musketeers manhandled GW and X played that game without their outstanding point, Dee Davis. The proof of this will come when URI plays Xavier. The Rams may lose, but we will give them a better game than GW did. If there was a lucky team last night, it was the one that wears the three corned hat.

I didn't realize you owned all the facts, Oba-won-ka-no-nothing. We got beat 14-6 on the offensive boards.....first half, second half, whatever. You get beat 14-6 on the offensive boards in a close game, you usually lose....whaich is exactly what we did. As for how GW matches up with Xavier, I could give a crap. I'll eagerly await your pre-game Xavier "capsule" for our game with the Muskies, which is usually oh-so-interesting (not). We got beat by GW last night. That's what I care about.....and largely by four freshman kicking our ass on the offensive glass.

[rodfromcranston]

Brooks, 17 minutes zero rebounds. Hare 23 minutes, 3 rebounds.
Hare had the same amount of rebounds as Mike Powell!
The games where our three headed center rebounds, we do alright.
When they don't rebound, we don't.
Again, we don't have a real foward on the roster.

[Gonebarongone]

To rambone 65, who ever you are, get your facts straight. First, the URI disadvantage on the boards occurred in the first half, GW had us 19-11, but that advantage did not translate into any kind of lead as the score was tied at the half. In the second half, GW had ONE more rebound than URI. Second, URI was not lucky because GW missed so many fouls. GW is not a good shooting team and their FT performance was not a surprise. GW scoring largely came through using size to get easy lay-ups and put backs because the Rams did not match up well against them. In the case where a team does match up well, Xavier for example, the Musketeers manhandled GW and X played that game without their outstanding point, Dee Davis. The proof of this will come when URI plays Xavier. The Rams may lose, but we will give them a better game than GW did. If there was a lucky team last night, it was the one that wears the three corned hat.

Crazy way to look at things. Getting murdered on the boards is THE reason Rhody lost. No luck involved. At all. When you shoot 50% from the field, 40% from 3, and are tied in turnovers at home, you need to win those games. Maybe Rhody would have been up by ten if it wasn't 19-11 in first half boards.

[Obadiah]

I don't see anything "crazy" about my view except you have a different one. The game was close and many factors came into play beyond rebounding and you can't say "THE" reason Rhody lost was simply rebounding. Then explain this, GW had a 19-11 edge in first half and the score was tied, in the second half, the GW edge was 15-14 and they won by a point. Oh, I guess with your reasoning, in the first URI would have been ahead by 10 points if we had rebounded better, then in the second half when GW out rebounded URI by only one where was that 10 points you referenced? According to your reasoning we should have won by 10. Please game complexity is so much more than your simplistic analysis allows.

[Gonebarongone]

I don't see anything "crazy" about my view except you have a different one. The game was close and many factors came into play beyond rebounding and you can't say "THE" reason Rhody lost was simply rebounding. Then explain this, GW had a 19-11 edge in first half and the score was tied, in the second half, the GW edge was 15-14 and they won by a point. Oh, I guess with your reasoning, in the first URI would have been ahead by 10 points if we had rebounded better, then in the second half when GW out rebounded URI by only one where was that 10 points you referenced? According to your reasoning we should have won by 10. Please game complexity is so much more than your simplistic analysis allows.

My reasoning is that Rhody shot better from 3 in the first half which, obviously, helps mitigate a huge rebounding spread. So does GW missing six first half free throws. My point is that if you make over 40% of your threes at home and the opposing team misses half a dozen FTs, you should be up substantial assuming turnovers, which I reference, are about even. It isn't rocket science. Because of the rebounding advantage, GW took more shots and more FTs, which is why it was close at half. Rhody did not shoot well from three in the 2nd half so, with the rebounding margin tighter, they were not able to pull away. My bigger point is that there were not a lot of factors in play here. It was pretty even statistically. If the rebounding margin is close, Rhody wins this game.

[Obadiah]

And my point is that their were lots of factors in this game as there are in many games. I'm not going to indulge in
"if" games with you. For example, GW had three breakaway inceptions for easy baskets, that hasn't happened in other URI games so IF that didn't occur, URI would have won. Please let's not go on that ridiculous course

BTW, my luck reference was a response to Rambone65 specific comment on GW's FT shooting. No need for you to take that out of context and generalize it. You should show better respect for what people actually state.

[Gonebarongone]

And my point is that their were lots of factors in this game as there are in many games. I'm not going to indulge in
"if" games with you. For example, GW had three breakaway inceptions for easy baskets, that hasn't happened in other URI games so IF that didn't occur, URI would have won. Please let's not go on that ridiculous course

BTW, my luck reference was a response to Rambone65 specific comment on GW's FT shooting. No need for you to take that out of context and generalize it. You should show better respect for what people actually state.

I don't disagree. There are a million moving parts to every basketball game and a millions ifs and buts in a one point game. The offensive rebounding rebounding rate for Rhody on defense on the year is 36%. That means for every 100 misses by the other team, they get the rebound 36 times. You can't survive the other team having 5,6,7,8 more possessions than you each game. It's one of the worst numbers in D-1. The flip of that (meaning how well Rhody rebounds on the offensive end) is also in the bottom 100. So, yeah, it is THE number that concerns me in this game and going forward. Hopefully, the recruits/transfers/age takes us to where Rhody needs to be because everything is else isn't too bad.

[ATPTourFan]

GBG, that makes sense. Pretty bad number to only collect 36% of defensive rebound opportunities.

[spookydog]

GW had that one possession in the 1st half with about 13 min to go in the half where they must have had 3 or 4 offensive rebounds in a row. That just felt like a microcosm of the entire season so far. (Somehow GW came away with 0 points on that possession, but man it was tough to watch.)

[Rambone65]

And my point is that their were lots of factors in this game as there are in many games. I'm not going to indulge in
"if" games with you. For example, GW had three breakaway inceptions for easy baskets, that hasn't happened in other URI games so IF that didn't occur, URI would have won. Please let's not go on that ridiculous course

BTW, my luck reference was a response to Rambone65 specific comment on GW's FT shooting. No need for you to take that out of context and generalize it. You should show better respect for what people actually state.

This Oba-won-ka-no-nothing clown must be kidding. He gets to lecture people about "getting their facts straight," out of one side of his mouth and then gets to cry about not being shown better respect a few posts later. Absolute clown.

Here' s a few more facts......we got clobbered 16-7 in second chnace points. That's the ball game, Ronald McDonald. First half, second half, irrelevant. Need another fact big boy? We got murdered 32-20 in points in the paint. I'd call that getting manhandled. Game, set, match.

[Obadiah]

I think we may be getting in the weeds here, but my point was the difference between winning was not so much the rebounding, but the height and athleticism of GW's front court. URI was overwhelmed by their inside scoring, no rebounding influence in that stat. And while it was bad in the first half, that kind of GW scoring practically doubled in the second half. URI was able to keep up because their inside shooting improved in the second half.

Silly to say we were manhandled in a one point loss. Charlotte was the team that manhandled us and in that game the rebounding (45-25) was the difference.

[Ramulous]

I am disappointed in the new rambone.....who has been on the board for three posts....and he is ragging on Obadiah and making fun of his name.....Obadiah is a quality member of this board and new rambone hasn't earned his stripes yet.....I suggest he tone down his stridency...

[Rambone65]

I am disappointed in the new rambone.....who has been on the board for three posts....and he is ragging on Obadiah and making fun of his name.....Obadiah is a quality member of this board and new rambone hasn't earned his stripes yet.....I suggest he tone down his stridency...

I was a member of the previous board under this very same name, so three hours is factually incorrect. Fact is, I've not been well so I have't been posting. Not that this matters....it's a message board, and you don't get to approve my posts or any one else's. For that matter, maybe you should look at Obe-chucklead's first post -- ragging on me and directing me to get my facts straight....as if his opinion (since debunked) is the only fact...He's the one that needs to tone it down.

Having said that, I appreciate your views.

[Ramulous]

Why do you call him names R65?.....you can defend yourself and make your points in a less bullying and strident fashion.

And I said three posts....not hours...

[Rambone65]

Why do you call him names R65?.....you can defend yourself and make your points in a less bullying and strident fashion.

And I said three posts....not hours...

Thanks for your views. Hopefully you'll apply the same standards to everyone, no matter if they've been here three hours, for three posts, or hundreds of posts. Otherwise, I can't take it seriously.

[Ramulous]

I try my best to hold everyone to the same standards.

[TruePoint]

It seems like it is really difficult for new posters to jump in without somehow getting into it with other posters. Is it us, or them?

Just making a general announcement: until a new poster gets about 20 posts deep or so, they're going to be on short leashes. We want the board to have as many posters as we can, and we want everyone to feel welcome. But if its your first day, maybe err on the side of not instigating an argument with well respected posters who have been here forever and make valuable contributions to the board.

[rambone 78]

Good point. I thought we had gotten past the name calling that was rampant on this board last year.

We can all agree to disagree, but leave the personal stuff out.

[rodfromcranston]

Geez, what a bunch of Poopie Pants Mc Butts!

[Ramulous]

Rod.....you are risking being put into time-out......

[rodfromcranston]

You meanie! I'm going to hold my breath and stamp my feet!

[Obadiah]

Every game is a new page and new variables come into play. Was the terrific shooting seen in the SLU game an aberration or was it an improved descriptive of this team moving forward? Most important is how does URI match up against GW? We know that GW has a deep bench, rotating regularly 9 players, 7 of whom get major minutes. They will try to wear down the Rams. The Colonials also show balanced scoring. They are not a prolific 3 point shooting team. GW is a good sized team - Xavier big. For URI to succeed we need to contain Isaiah Armwood and Kevin Larsen who most surely will push Hare around. GW will try to dominate our smaller front court to get lots of scoring in the paint. URI cannot afford a rebounding effort like the St. Mary's or Charlotte games or we will get killed with put backs.

The Rams have the home court advantage, but that same advantage did UMass no good, neither did the big Mullins crowd. Key to the game will be the Rhody defense - if it's on, the Rams will prevail.

Sorry, R65, but you were incorrect when you said you debunked my first post. The actual first post I wrote in this thread appeared BEFORE the game. I believe pretty much what I said is what happened and rebounding was not the only problem. Again that was my only point.

Sorry you are not feeling too well, hope you are recovering and continue to post.

And a shout out to Ramulous. Many thanks.

[Rambone65]

Every game is a new page and new variables come into play. Was the terrific shooting seen in the SLU game an aberration or was it an improved descriptive of this team moving forward? Most important is how does URI match up against GW? We know that GW has a deep bench, rotating regularly 9 players, 7 of whom get major minutes. They will try to wear down the Rams. The Colonials also show balanced scoring. They are not a prolific 3 point shooting team. GW is a good sized team - Xavier big. For URI to succeed we need to contain Isaiah Armwood and Kevin Larsen who most surely will push Hare around. GW will try to dominate our smaller front court to get lots of scoring in the paint. URI cannot afford a rebounding effort like the St. Mary's or Charlotte games or we will get killed with put backs.

The Rams have the home court advantage, but that same advantage did UMass no good, neither did the big Mullins crowd. Key to the game will be the Rhody defense - if it's on, the Rams will prevail.

Sorry, R65, but you were incorrect when you said you debunked my first post. The actual first post I wrote in this thread appeared BEFORE the game. I believe pretty much what I said is what happened and rebounding was not the only problem. Again that was my only point.

Sorry you are not feeling too well, hope you are recovering and continue to post.

And a shout out to Ramulous. Many thanks.

Nice try, but as you no doubt knew, I wasn't referring to your first post in the thread, but your first post in which you engaged me -- the one where you told me to get my facts straight. That was completely debunked.

Nevertheless, thanks for your well wishes...I am feeling better, and finally well enough to begin irritating others out here more regularly (knock on wood.)

[Ramulous]

I have no problem with contrary views here....it is what makes the board a fun place to visit....I just don't think name-calling and other bullish behavior is a substitute of logical thought and argument....

[ATPTourFan]

The name calling ends now.

Agreed that you can argue all you want without that kind of behavior.