How would you rate Coach Cox for the 2020 - 2021 Season?

[Jersey77]

13-5 can make it, but you better have some marquee non-conference wins to back it up. The crux of this issue is playing as many good teams as possible before conference play. With the A-10 you can't just point to a record and say "that will get us in!" You can do that of you're in a P5 for sure, but not in this league where the margin for error is so thin.

The problem is that if you are good program from a better mid-major conference it is sometimes difficult to schedule a team from a P5 or high major. They tend to stay away or won't want a home and away series, they feel it doesn't benefit them.

Yeah we all know that. Getting a P5 at home isn't that important and we still pull it off fairly often.

URI has had a solid non-conferencd schedule for years now with plenty of opportunities to pad a resume for March.

I don't think it's something we should complain about. We aren't going to any power conference anytime soon and we still get 3 to 4 marquee non-concerence games a year and the A-10 provides us with a few more opportunities.

I just don't like the "woe is me" mid major argument, especially because it doesn't really apply to us.

Last year. Bubble team. How much better would our bubble have looked if we didn't lose to Brown? What other bubble teams were losing to someone like Brown? 13-5 didn't get us in because we didn't earn it. The committee shouldn't give you a pass on record alone. If you lose to Brown you are justly penalized and if you don't beat the better teams in the A-10 then you don't deserve it. I don't think any of us after squeaking past UMass last year felt like we deserved to be in the dance because we were 13-5. We felt like we still needed to earn it.

Now we are in danger of losing some of those marquee games that we usually get with this year's crap performance.

I agree as I stated earlier that we have been fortunate to get some good OOC games scheduled.

I do give Thorr and Cox credit for trying to get the best competition possible.
Traveling last minute and playing Wisconsin there was no easy task and a good example.

[PeterRamTime]

In addition to some of the other things posted, this was from NBC:

RHODE ISLAND (NET: 57, NBC: Next four out): The Rams avoided disaster when they beat UMass (136) by one on the road on Saturday. At this point, I do not see how the Rams can get an at-large bid without beating Dayton at some point during the Atlantic 10 tournament, but that won’t happen unless they play in the title game. On the other hand, it makes it more likely that they will not need to beat the Flyers in order to get it done. They only have one Quad 1 win — at VCU (68) — and they also have a Quad 4 loss at Brown (224), and now that their NET is in the high-50s, they no longer have that to hang their hat on, either.

https://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com ... hern-iowa/

Brown loss was totally brutal. So was VCU ending up being mediocre.

This doesn't account for our record against Q2's which was the thing carrying us at the time.

Had we not choked against Davidson we might have still been in at that point.

[RhowdyRam02]

13-5 can make it, but you better have some marquee non-conference wins to back it up. The crux of this issue is playing as many good teams as possible before conference play. With the A-10 you can't just point to a record and say "that will get us in!" You can do that of you're in a P5 for sure, but not in this league where the margin for error is so thin.

Exactly. If your 13 wins are against Fordham, La Salle, Duquesne, George Washington, George Mason, UMass, etc - and you are 1-5 against VCU, Dayton, SLU, etc... - you're no better than a SWAC or Southland school that beats no one's and expects an at-large invite.

In reality last year we needed to go 15-3 in conference if you wanted a realistic shot. Our best win in conference was #68 VCU. That was a Q1 because it was on the road. Does your "marquee" win really count if it's over a team that wasn't going to the tournament?

There were 3 top 50 teams in conference last year, Dayton (3), Richmond (38), and St Louis (49). We lost to them.

We played 7 Q1 games all of last year. We were embarrassed in 3 of them. We were 1-6.

We had a Q3 loss to Brown. That's not anywhere close to an NCAA team.

I agree that is not a tournament resume, but to say it was not close is wrong. They were a bubble team last year. We did not need to win the A10 tourney but probably had to beat Richmond, St. Louis or VCU again in the A10 tournament.

We were no longer a bubble team when the season ended last year, that is a stone cold fact

[Blue Man]

I agree that is not a tournament resume, but to say it was not close is wrong. They were a bubble team last year. We did not need to win the A10 tourney but probably had to beat Richmond, St. Louis or VCU again in the A10 tournament.

No way. We had to win the tournament to receive a bid last year

Not necessarily even though we played our way off the bubble , if we would of made it to the finals we probably would of been in.
This of course is all conjecture because who knows what would of happened.
Regardless, the way we finished the season was extremely disappointing.

We would've played Duquesne in the quarters, and Richmond/Bonnies in the semis. Best case scenario it's Richmond.

Say you beat them and then lose to Dayton in the finals. You would have a barely top 60 NET and a 2-7 Q1 record, with a Q4 loss. 0.0% chance of being an at large.

This is of course ignoring the fact that your team had lost 4 of 7 going into that tournament, with one of those wins being a 76-75 buzzer beater against conference juggernaut Fordham.

Based on the history of David Cox teams playing their worst basketball in Feb/March, I would be willing to bet last year's team goes 1-1 or 0-1 in the tournament.

[Jersey77]

No way. We had to win the tournament to receive a bid last year

Not necessarily even though we played our way off the bubble , if we would of made it to the finals we probably would of been in.
This of course is all conjecture because who knows what would of happened.
Regardless, the way we finished the season was extremely disappointing.

We would've played Duquesne in the quarters, and Richmond/Bonnies in the semis. Best case scenario it's Richmond.

Say you beat them and then lose to Dayton in the finals. You would have a barely top 60 NET and a 2-7 Q1 record, with a Q4 loss. 0.0% chance of being an at large.

This is of course ignoring the fact that your team had lost 4 of 7 going into that tournament, with one of those wins being a 76-75 buzzer beater against conference juggernaut Fordham.

Based on the history of David Cox teams playing their worst basketball in Feb/March, I would be willing to bet last year's team goes 1-1 or 0-1 in the tournament.

All I am saying is it would of been a longshot based on how we finished and doubtful, but still possible because we don't know how the rest of the country would fare, other teams could of played their way out.

If we would of somehow had a nice A10T run into the finals with a 15-6 conference record and based on what may or may not happen elsewhere, maybe the selection committee would of voted us in or at least a play in game, giving the conference possibly 3 teams in.

Since this is all conjecture, not sure what difference it makes at this point.

[Blue Man]

Not necessarily even though we played our way off the bubble , if we would of made it to the finals we probably would of been in.
This of course is all conjecture because who knows what would of happened.
Regardless, the way we finished the season was extremely disappointing.

We would've played Duquesne in the quarters, and Richmond/Bonnies in the semis. Best case scenario it's Richmond.

Say you beat them and then lose to Dayton in the finals. You would have a barely top 60 NET and a 2-7 Q1 record, with a Q4 loss. 0.0% chance of being an at large.

This is of course ignoring the fact that your team had lost 4 of 7 going into that tournament, with one of those wins being a 76-75 buzzer beater against conference juggernaut Fordham.

Based on the history of David Cox teams playing their worst basketball in Feb/March, I would be willing to bet last year's team goes 1-1 or 0-1 in the tournament.

All I am saying is it would of been a longshot based on how we finished and doubtful, but still possible because we don't know how the rest of the country would fare, other teams could of played their way out.

If we would of somehow had a nice A10T run into the finals with a 15-6 conference record and based on what may or may not happen elsewhere, maybe the selection committee would of voted us in or at least a play in game, giving the conference possibly 3 teams in.

Since this is all conjecture, not sure what difference it makes at this point.

Agreed, but the difference it makes is in the perception that Cox "can get it done," i.e. get into the tournament. Then, we're using that as a means or excuse to extend him. NET and records aren't end all be all, it's who did you beat and who did you lose to.

Zero shot is a team with potentially their best win on a neutral floor against Richmond (probably barely top 50 after a loss to URI in this scenario), and a road win against a non-NCAA tournament VCU team going to the dance. Add in the fact that they lost to BROWN to put a Q4 loss with a 2-7 Q1 record, and it is an absolute joke to think this team had any shot of dancing no matter who else played their way off the bubble.

[Jersey77]

We would've played Duquesne in the quarters, and Richmond/Bonnies in the semis. Best case scenario it's Richmond.

Say you beat them and then lose to Dayton in the finals. You would have a barely top 60 NET and a 2-7 Q1 record, with a Q4 loss. 0.0% chance of being an at large.

This is of course ignoring the fact that your team had lost 4 of 7 going into that tournament, with one of those wins being a 76-75 buzzer beater against conference juggernaut Fordham.

Based on the history of David Cox teams playing their worst basketball in Feb/March, I would be willing to bet last year's team goes 1-1 or 0-1 in the tournament.

All I am saying is it would of been a longshot based on how we finished and doubtful, but still possible because we don't know how the rest of the country would fare, other teams could of played their way out.

If we would of somehow had a nice A10T run into the finals with a 15-6 conference record and based on what may or may not happen elsewhere, maybe the selection committee would of voted us in or at least a play in game, giving the conference possibly 3 teams in.

Since this is all conjecture, not sure what difference it makes at this point.

Agreed, but the difference it makes is in the perception that Cox "can get it done," i.e. get into the tournament. Then, we're using that as a means or excuse to extend him. NET and records aren't end all be all, it's who did you beat and who did you lose to.

Zero shot is a team with potentially their best win on a neutral floor against Richmond (probably barely top 50 after a loss to URI in this scenario), and a road win against a non-NCAA tournament VCU team going to the dance. Add in the fact that they lost to BROWN to put a Q4 loss with a 2-7 Q1 record, and it is an absolute joke to think this team had any shot of dancing no matter who else played their way off the bubble.

Well we will see if Thorr decides to extend now (prior to start of season) or wait to see how next year plays out.

[Rhodyhooopz]

Tammy got her extension today. Well deserved!!!!!

[daytonflyerfan]

IMO, this is a nice tool, it ranks all of the d1 teams, last year, you guys were the 13th team out, so you were probably going to have to win the A10T to get a bid. Scroll down about halfway down.

You can also input the hypothetical A10T games, pick win or lose, and see how it impacts your ranking.

https://barttorvik.com/teamcast.php?&te ... &year=2020

[daytonflyerfan]

We would've played Duquesne in the quarters, and Richmond/Bonnies in the semis. Best case scenario it's Richmond.

Say you beat them and then lose to Dayton in the finals. You would have a barely top 60 NET and a 2-7 Q1 record, with a Q4 loss. 0.0% chance of being an at large.

This is of course ignoring the fact that your team had lost 4 of 7 going into that tournament, with one of those wins being a 76-75 buzzer beater against conference juggernaut Fordham.

Based on the history of David Cox teams playing their worst basketball in Feb/March, I would be willing to bet last year's team goes 1-1 or 0-1 in the tournament.

Had you beaten Duquesne in the A10T on a neutral court, you improve to the 11th team out from 13th out...then had you beaten Richmond on a neutral court, you move up to 8th out...had it been SBU instead of Richmond, then still stuck at 11th out


https://barttorvik.com/teamcast.php?&te ... &year=2020

[SGreenwell]

DFF, that's a nifty link and site - thanks!

And yeah, it's pretty strong revisionist history to say that we were on the bubble last year. We were in the sense that at some point in the 2019-20 season, we were on the bubble, but we were off it well before the Atlantic 10 tournament was scheduled to start. We needed to win that tournament to make the NCAA tournament.

[ramster]

We would've played Duquesne in the quarters, and Richmond/Bonnies in the semis. Best case scenario it's Richmond.

Say you beat them and then lose to Dayton in the finals. You would have a barely top 60 NET and a 2-7 Q1 record, with a Q4 loss. 0.0% chance of being an at large.

This is of course ignoring the fact that your team had lost 4 of 7 going into that tournament, with one of those wins being a 76-75 buzzer beater against conference juggernaut Fordham.

Based on the history of David Cox teams playing their worst basketball in Feb/March, I would be willing to bet last year's team goes 1-1 or 0-1 in the tournament.

Had you beaten Duquesne in the A10T on a neutral court, you improve to the 11th team out from 13th out...then had you beaten Richmond on a neutral court, you move up to 8th out...had it been SBU instead of Richmond, then still stuck at 11th out


https://barttorvik.com/teamcast.php?&te ... &year=2020

We lost 4 of our last 7 games. 2 of the 3 wins were by 1 point vs Fordham and UMASS. Very weak finish in Conference play.

[Jersey77]

We would've played Duquesne in the quarters, and Richmond/Bonnies in the semis. Best case scenario it's Richmond.

Say you beat them and then lose to Dayton in the finals. You would have a barely top 60 NET and a 2-7 Q1 record, with a Q4 loss. 0.0% chance of being an at large.

This is of course ignoring the fact that your team had lost 4 of 7 going into that tournament, with one of those wins being a 76-75 buzzer beater against conference juggernaut Fordham.

Based on the history of David Cox teams playing their worst basketball in Feb/March, I would be willing to bet last year's team goes 1-1 or 0-1 in the tournament.

Had you beaten Duquesne in the A10T on a neutral court, you improve to the 11th team out from 13th out...then had you beaten Richmond on a neutral court, you move up to 8th out...had it been SBU instead of Richmond, then still stuck at 11th out


https://barttorvik.com/teamcast.php?&te ... &year=2020

We lost 4 of our last 7 games. 2 of the 3 wins were by 1 point vs Fordham and UMASS. Very weak finish in Conference play.

It was a very disappointing finish and the way we were playing we probably would of won only 1 game in the A10T, maybe at best.
Unfortunately the way we finished this year was even worse and I didn't think we were going to win any tournament games even prior to Shep being out. As I said many times these late season collapses are a huge concern.

Still I am not totally out on Cox and believe Thorr will give him more time to prove himself.
I know many on this board feel we should pull the trigger now and start over, but I think that is too premature,
I am not ready yet to call it quits on this team and start another rebuild.

At this point our staff has much work to do this off season, also improving their own skills and development.
Losing AB is tough, were were already needing backcourt and scoring help with Shep and Fatts graduating.
Curious to see who they bring in and also the progress of our freshman.

I am certainly not expecting any miracles next season based on my prior forecast but want to see this program trending in a positive direction.

[rjsuperfly66]

So here's a question for the good of the group --- The program basically has to poop or get off the pot with Cox after next season with an extension or a termination. What do you think it would take for Cox to earn an extension?

NCAA Tournament?
Top 5 but with promising core/recruits?
Top 7 but with promising core/recruits?

[RhowdyRam02]

It should be an NCAA tournament, four years with what he walked into is more than sufficient. I fear what it will actually take. CFL 2

[rhodyrudder]

So here's a question for the good of the group --- The program basically has to poop or get off the pot with Cox after next season with an extension or a termination. What do you think it would take for Cox to earn an extension?

NCAA Tournament?
Top 5 but with promising core/recruits?
Top 7 but with promising core/recruits?

I think the chances of dancing in '22 are slim, but another year like this (losing record, little or no improvement over the course of the season) will require Thorr to make a change. We need to at least be in the conversation for some kind of postseason tourney and have reason to be proud of the program's growth under his leadership. Right now, unfortunately, it's regressed, and that is obvious.

Interesting that the extension for Reiss was announced yesterday.
I think the space between the lines is definitely big enough for all of us (and DC) to read what that means.

[daytonflyerfan]

DFF, that's a nifty link and site - thanks!

And yeah, it's pretty strong revisionist history to say that we were on the bubble last year. We were in the sense that at some point in the 2019-20 season, we were on the bubble, but we were off it well before the Atlantic 10 tournament was scheduled to start. We needed to win that tournament to make the NCAA tournament.

Yeah, I like that sort of bracketology page that I linked to...his bracketology is usually pretty accurate, I don't think he misses on too many of his picks, that site is helpful to gauge where you stand if you are not in the field or on the bubble, it is helpful for NIT bracketology too...lots of past scores and other data going back to 2008.

He is a Wisconsin Badgers fan if I recall correctly.

[rhodylaw]

DFF, that's a nifty link and site - thanks!

And yeah, it's pretty strong revisionist history to say that we were on the bubble last year. We were in the sense that at some point in the 2019-20 season, we were on the bubble, but we were off it well before the Atlantic 10 tournament was scheduled to start. We needed to win that tournament to make the NCAA tournament.

I really think that the term “bubble” is the issue - I take it from responses that people means you need to be in the last four out to be on the bubble? To me, if you are hanging around 40 to 60 going into a conference tourney you have a shot and are on the bubble.

Anyone watching Jeff Dowtin play this year in the G league playoffs and doubt that he would have dragged our ass to the A10 finals is fooling themselves. They were an NIT team when the season ended, with a shot to make the tourney with some work in the A10 tournament. Yes, it was a long shot if they didn’t win it all but I bet they would have gotten to the last four in, last four out discussion. I don’t know what to call that other than a bubble team.

[Rhody15]

DFF, that's a nifty link and site - thanks!

And yeah, it's pretty strong revisionist history to say that we were on the bubble last year. We were in the sense that at some point in the 2019-20 season, we were on the bubble, but we were off it well before the Atlantic 10 tournament was scheduled to start. We needed to win that tournament to make the NCAA tournament.

I really think that the term “bubble” is the issue - I take it from responses that people means you need to be in the last four out to be on the bubble? To me, if you are hanging around 40 to 60 going into a conference tourney you have a shot and are on the bubble.

Anyone watching Jeff Dowtin play this year in the G league playoffs and doubt that he would have dragged our ass to the A10 finals is fooling themselves. They were an NIT team when the season ended, with a shot to make the tourney with some work in the A10 tournament. Yes, it was a long shot if they didn’t win it all but I bet they would have gotten to the last four in, last four out discussion. I don’t know what to call that other than a bubble team.

To me, the bubble consists of:

Last Four Byes
Last Four In
First Four Out
Next Four Out

At the end of the regular season, we were not on any of those.

[Blue Man]

So here's a question for the good of the group --- The program basically has to poop or get off the pot with Cox after next season with an extension or a termination. What do you think it would take for Cox to earn an extension?

NCAA Tournament?
Top 5 but with promising core/recruits?
Top 7 but with promising core/recruits?

Retain your key players. That has to be number one.

If you lose one of Ish, Mitchells, Walker, Martin, I think short of a miracle NCAA appearance and win you have to dump Cox. If he can't retain the talent he recruits, what does it matter?

NCAA at large at a minimum. Cox did not walk into a rebuild. When the contract was signed the "bar" we were told was A10 championships and NCAA appearances. Obviously no one takes that literally, as in we should dance every year and hang an A-10 banner, but you take that to mean that you are competing for a title and a birth, giving yourselves a chance to make it, and getting better as the season progresses.

Cox is a clear 0-3. The reason he was remotely in the same stratosphere last year was because of Jeff Dowtin. Dave has not replaced Jeff (which would be hard to do), and the absence of someone as good as el jefe has exposed Cox for what he is as a coach - unprepared, unable to make adjustments, running a system that either doesn't work or he can't get players for.

He did not walk into a rebuild, but it is clear we are starting one now.

The question is - do you now give him 4 years after this new rebuild, and think that he'll develop and change?

Agree with the shit or get off the pot line of thinking, in 3 years I don't think anyone could point to one thing that has objectively gotten better like you could with Dan Hurley. Not in results, the eye test, recruiting, player development...nothing. Hurley had a rebuild. Cox had a turnkey program with pieces that an average coach should've been able to be on the bubble both years. Jeff, Cyril, Fatts - with Tyrese as a freshman. If Jeff was kept on the ball (which any average coach would do), that team is at least top 4 in the A10 the first year, and dancing the next.

It's like in Step Brothers when Dale farts and the tuxedos look fucked up. Losing Jeff put a lot into perspective about what this team is capable of under this coach, and I don't think you can like it.

[rambone 78]

If it's true that the money is there from boosters to drastically improve the program, that tells me that they don't want someone [Cox] holding back progress on the court any longer than they have to.

What I mean is, URI could make a change now if they want to.

I still think they will keep Cox another year, but don't be surprised if they don't.

It's great that it seems like they definitely want URI [men and women] basketball to get to that next level, and realize it takes more than words to get there.

[Jersey77]

So here's a question for the good of the group --- The program basically has to poop or get off the pot with Cox after next season with an extension or a termination. What do you think it would take for Cox to earn an extension?

NCAA Tournament?
Top 5 but with promising core/recruits?
Top 7 but with promising core/recruits?

Retain your key players. That has to be number one.

If you lose one of Ish, Mitchells, Walker, Martin, I think short of a miracle NCAA appearance and win you have to dump Cox. If he can't retain the talent he recruits, what does it matter?

NCAA at large at a minimum. Cox did not walk into a rebuild. When the contract was signed the "bar" we were told was A10 championships and NCAA appearances. Obviously no one takes that literally, as in we should dance every year and hang an A-10 banner, but you take that to mean that you are competing for a title and a birth, giving yourselves a chance to make it, and getting better as the season progresses.

Cox is a clear 0-3. The reason he was remotely in the same stratosphere last year was because of Jeff Dowtin. Dave has not replaced Jeff (which would be hard to do), and the absence of someone as good as el jefe has exposed Cox for what he is as a coach - unprepared, unable to make adjustments, running a system that either doesn't work or he can't get players for.

He did not walk into a rebuild, but it is clear we are starting one now.

The question is - do you now give him 4 years after this new rebuild, and think that he'll develop and change?

Agree with the shit or get off the pot line of thinking, in 3 years I don't think anyone could point to one thing that has objectively gotten better like you could with Dan Hurley. Not in results, the eye test, recruiting, player development...nothing. Hurley had a rebuild. Cox had a turnkey program with pieces that an average coach should've been able to be on the bubble both years. Jeff, Cyril, Fatts - with Tyrese as a freshman. If Jeff was kept on the ball (which any average coach would do), that team is at least top 4 in the A10 the first year, and dancing the next.

It's like in Step Brothers when Dale farts and the tuxedos look fucked up. Losing Jeff put a lot into perspective about what this team is capable of under this coach, and I don't think you can like it.

Cox's first year we were no way an NCAAT bubble team, there were just too many teams in our conference better than us, period.
We lost 4 starters and almost all our scoring, plus you have a coach in his 1st year ever running a program.

No telling what any coach would of done with Fatts. If he wasn't going to be on the ball, he probably would of been gone.
What was he supposed to be a CG at 5'9" who isn't a good shooter (35% FG, 28% 3pt) and mostly guarding much bigger CG's?
I am sure playing off the ball at CG would of been his best path to the next level, yeah right.

[RhowdyRam02]

DFF, that's a nifty link and site - thanks!

And yeah, it's pretty strong revisionist history to say that we were on the bubble last year. We were in the sense that at some point in the 2019-20 season, we were on the bubble, but we were off it well before the Atlantic 10 tournament was scheduled to start. We needed to win that tournament to make the NCAA tournament.

I really think that the term “bubble” is the issue - I take it from responses that people means you need to be in the last four out to be on the bubble? To me, if you are hanging around 40 to 60 going into a conference tourney you have a shot and are on the bubble.

Anyone watching Jeff Dowtin play this year in the G league playoffs and doubt that he would have dragged our ass to the A10 finals is fooling themselves. They were an NIT team when the season ended, with a shot to make the tourney with some work in the A10 tournament. Yes, it was a long shot if they didn’t win it all but I bet they would have gotten to the last four in, last four out discussion. I don’t know what to call that other than a bubble team.

The issue is your definition of bubble doesn't align with any usage by anyone else in the college basketball landscape. We weren't in any reputable brackets, we weren't in the first eight out in any reputable brackets, and we needed to win the conference tournament to get into the tournament. That type of team has never been, is not, and never will be considered a bubble team.

I don't need to see what Jeff Dowtin is doing in the G league or whatever they call it this year, I watched him for four years, and I watched him last year. The team was dead in the water with him last year (not his fault). We weren't making the A10 finals last year with how we were playing down the stretch. It's delusional to think they would have been last four in, first four out if they beat Duquesne and Richmond or St. Bonaventure. Maybe that's what you call it instead of a bubble team, delusional

[RhowdyRam02]

DFF, that's a nifty link and site - thanks!

And yeah, it's pretty strong revisionist history to say that we were on the bubble last year. We were in the sense that at some point in the 2019-20 season, we were on the bubble, but we were off it well before the Atlantic 10 tournament was scheduled to start. We needed to win that tournament to make the NCAA tournament.

I really think that the term “bubble” is the issue - I take it from responses that people means you need to be in the last four out to be on the bubble? To me, if you are hanging around 40 to 60 going into a conference tourney you have a shot and are on the bubble.

Anyone watching Jeff Dowtin play this year in the G league playoffs and doubt that he would have dragged our ass to the A10 finals is fooling themselves. They were an NIT team when the season ended, with a shot to make the tourney with some work in the A10 tournament. Yes, it was a long shot if they didn’t win it all but I bet they would have gotten to the last four in, last four out discussion. I don’t know what to call that other than a bubble team.

To me, the bubble consists of:

Last Four Byes
Last Four In
First Four Out
Next Four Out

At the end of the regular season, we were not on any of those.

Right, that's literally how everyone describes it

[RhowdyRam02]

So here's a question for the good of the group --- The program basically has to poop or get off the pot with Cox after next season with an extension or a termination. What do you think it would take for Cox to earn an extension?

NCAA Tournament?
Top 5 but with promising core/recruits?
Top 7 but with promising core/recruits?

Retain your key players. That has to be number one.

If you lose one of Ish, Mitchells, Walker, Martin, I think short of a miracle NCAA appearance and win you have to dump Cox. If he can't retain the talent he recruits, what does it matter?

NCAA at large at a minimum. Cox did not walk into a rebuild. When the contract was signed the "bar" we were told was A10 championships and NCAA appearances. Obviously no one takes that literally, as in we should dance every year and hang an A-10 banner, but you take that to mean that you are competing for a title and a birth, giving yourselves a chance to make it, and getting better as the season progresses.

Cox is a clear 0-3. The reason he was remotely in the same stratosphere last year was because of Jeff Dowtin. Dave has not replaced Jeff (which would be hard to do), and the absence of someone as good as el jefe has exposed Cox for what he is as a coach - unprepared, unable to make adjustments, running a system that either doesn't work or he can't get players for.

He did not walk into a rebuild, but it is clear we are starting one now.

The question is - do you now give him 4 years after this new rebuild, and think that he'll develop and change?

Agree with the shit or get off the pot line of thinking, in 3 years I don't think anyone could point to one thing that has objectively gotten better like you could with Dan Hurley. Not in results, the eye test, recruiting, player development...nothing. Hurley had a rebuild. Cox had a turnkey program with pieces that an average coach should've been able to be on the bubble both years. Jeff, Cyril, Fatts - with Tyrese as a freshman. If Jeff was kept on the ball (which any average coach would do), that team is at least top 4 in the A10 the first year, and dancing the next.

It's like in Step Brothers when Dale farts and the tuxedos look fucked up. Losing Jeff put a lot into perspective about what this team is capable of under this coach, and I don't think you can like it.

Not just any average coach would have kept Jeff on the ball, all the fans would have as well. It's all right there in the gamethreads. It's not often where you can legitimately say message board posters know more than the coach, but in that case we did

[RhowdyRam02]

If it's true that the money is there from boosters to drastically improve the program, that tells me that they don't want someone [Cox] holding back progress on the court any longer than they have to.

What I mean is, URI could make a change now if they want to.

I still think they will keep Cox another year, but don't be surprised if they don't.

It's great that it seems like they definitely want URI [men and women] basketball to get to that next level, and realize it takes more than words to get there.

If Cox made it to yesterday and was quoted in the article for the practice facility than the dream is over, Cox is coming back next year. It's unfortunate, but there really is no hope for the next year now

[steveystuds06]

So here's a question for the good of the group --- The program basically has to poop or get off the pot with Cox after next season with an extension or a termination. What do you think it would take for Cox to earn an extension?

NCAA Tournament?
Top 5 but with promising core/recruits?
Top 7 but with promising core/recruits?

Retain your key players. That has to be number one.

If you lose one of Ish, Mitchells, Walker, Martin, I think short of a miracle NCAA appearance and win you have to dump Cox. If he can't retain the talent he recruits, what does it matter?

NCAA at large at a minimum. Cox did not walk into a rebuild. When the contract was signed the "bar" we were told was A10 championships and NCAA appearances. Obviously no one takes that literally, as in we should dance every year and hang an A-10 banner, but you take that to mean that you are competing for a title and a birth, giving yourselves a chance to make it, and getting better as the season progresses.

Cox is a clear 0-3. The reason he was remotely in the same stratosphere last year was because of Jeff Dowtin. Dave has not replaced Jeff (which would be hard to do), and the absence of someone as good as el jefe has exposed Cox for what he is as a coach - unprepared, unable to make adjustments, running a system that either doesn't work or he can't get players for.

He did not walk into a rebuild, but it is clear we are starting one now.

The question is - do you now give him 4 years after this new rebuild, and think that he'll develop and change?

Agree with the shit or get off the pot line of thinking, in 3 years I don't think anyone could point to one thing that has objectively gotten better like you could with Dan Hurley. Not in results, the eye test, recruiting, player development...nothing. Hurley had a rebuild. Cox had a turnkey program with pieces that an average coach should've been able to be on the bubble both years. Jeff, Cyril, Fatts - with Tyrese as a freshman. If Jeff was kept on the ball (which any average coach would do), that team is at least top 4 in the A10 the first year, and dancing the next.

It's like in Step Brothers when Dale farts and the tuxedos look fucked up. Losing Jeff put a lot into perspective about what this team is capable of under this coach, and I don't think you can like it.

Cox's first year we were no way an NCAAT bubble team, there were just too many teams in our conference better than us, period.
We lost 4 starters and almost all our scoring, plus you have a coach in his 1st year ever running a program.

No telling what any coach would of done with Fatts. If he weren't going to be on the ball, he probably would of been gone.
What was he supposed to be a CG at 5'9" who isn't a good shooter (35% FG, 28% 3pt) and mostly guarding much bigger CG's?
I am sure playing off the ball at CG would of been his best path to the next level, yeah right.

Why would Fatts have to defend bigger guards? Jeff was still out there with him..... What's better? Jeff running our offense and putting our guys in great positions to score, including Fatts or having Fatts hold the ball until the end of the shot clock and throwing up contested 3s? Part of the reason Fatts shot such a low % was the type of shots he took. Jeff made everyone around him better when he ran our offense.

[Jersey77]

I really think that the term “bubble” is the issue - I take it from responses that people means you need to be in the last four out to be on the bubble? To me, if you are hanging around 40 to 60 going into a conference tourney you have a shot and are on the bubble.

Anyone watching Jeff Dowtin play this year in the G league playoffs and doubt that he would have dragged our ass to the A10 finals is fooling themselves. They were an NIT team when the season ended, with a shot to make the tourney with some work in the A10 tournament. Yes, it was a long shot if they didn’t win it all but I bet they would have gotten to the last four in, last four out discussion. I don’t know what to call that other than a bubble team.

To me, the bubble consists of:

Last Four Byes
Last Four In
First Four Out
Next Four Out

At the end of the regular season, we were not on any of those.

Right, that's literally how everyone describes it

Why so hung up on whether or not we would of been on the bubble, depending upon our A10T results if it happened?
It is all total conjecture at this point and there was no NCAAT, so what difference does it make?
We weren't playing good at the time and even worse this year.
I am sure Thorr and Cox are having plenty of conversations on expectations and the direction of this program.
I am glad he is going to make the decision and not us.

[RhowdyRam02]

Retain your key players. That has to be number one.

If you lose one of Ish, Mitchells, Walker, Martin, I think short of a miracle NCAA appearance and win you have to dump Cox. If he can't retain the talent he recruits, what does it matter?

NCAA at large at a minimum. Cox did not walk into a rebuild. When the contract was signed the "bar" we were told was A10 championships and NCAA appearances. Obviously no one takes that literally, as in we should dance every year and hang an A-10 banner, but you take that to mean that you are competing for a title and a birth, giving yourselves a chance to make it, and getting better as the season progresses.

Cox is a clear 0-3. The reason he was remotely in the same stratosphere last year was because of Jeff Dowtin. Dave has not replaced Jeff (which would be hard to do), and the absence of someone as good as el jefe has exposed Cox for what he is as a coach - unprepared, unable to make adjustments, running a system that either doesn't work or he can't get players for.

He did not walk into a rebuild, but it is clear we are starting one now.

The question is - do you now give him 4 years after this new rebuild, and think that he'll develop and change?

Agree with the shit or get off the pot line of thinking, in 3 years I don't think anyone could point to one thing that has objectively gotten better like you could with Dan Hurley. Not in results, the eye test, recruiting, player development...nothing. Hurley had a rebuild. Cox had a turnkey program with pieces that an average coach should've been able to be on the bubble both years. Jeff, Cyril, Fatts - with Tyrese as a freshman. If Jeff was kept on the ball (which any average coach would do), that team is at least top 4 in the A10 the first year, and dancing the next.

It's like in Step Brothers when Dale farts and the tuxedos look fucked up. Losing Jeff put a lot into perspective about what this team is capable of under this coach, and I don't think you can like it.

Cox's first year we were no way an NCAAT bubble team, there were just too many teams in our conference better than us, period.
We lost 4 starters and almost all our scoring, plus you have a coach in his 1st year ever running a program.

No telling what any coach would of done with Fatts. If he weren't going to be on the ball, he probably would of been gone.
What was he supposed to be a CG at 5'9" who isn't a good shooter (35% FG, 28% 3pt) and mostly guarding much bigger CG's?
I am sure playing off the ball at CG would of been his best path to the next level, yeah right.

Why would Fatts have to defend bigger guards? Jeff was still out there with him..... What's better? Jeff running our offense and putting our guys in great places to score, including Fatts or having Fatts hold the ball until the end of the shot clock and throwing up contested 3s? Part of the reason Fatts shot such a low % was the type of shots he took. Jeff made everyone around him better when he ran our offense.

Right, we could have imposed our will and played true positionless basketball. On defense Fatts plays opposite the other teams point guard and go from there, on offense Jeff controls the ball with Fatts playing off of him and you make the defense figure out how to adapt to what you're doing. Instead we made Fatts the point guard, grinded our whole offense down, still had him taking as many shots as he would have, maybe more, as he would have playing off of Jeff, and he's still not going to the next level. So what did we accomplish other than feeding one player and hurting the team as a result?

[rjsuperfly66]

I really think that the term “bubble” is the issue - I take it from responses that people means you need to be in the last four out to be on the bubble? To me, if you are hanging around 40 to 60 going into a conference tourney you have a shot and are on the bubble.

Anyone watching Jeff Dowtin play this year in the G league playoffs and doubt that he would have dragged our ass to the A10 finals is fooling themselves. They were an NIT team when the season ended, with a shot to make the tourney with some work in the A10 tournament. Yes, it was a long shot if they didn’t win it all but I bet they would have gotten to the last four in, last four out discussion. I don’t know what to call that other than a bubble team.

To me, the bubble consists of:

Last Four Byes
Last Four In
First Four Out
Next Four Out

At the end of the regular season, we were not on any of those.

Right, that's literally how everyone describes it

I think the bubble is relative -- Even those things aside, to be on the bubble at the beginning of conference tournament week means that there is a path to an at-large bid. I say that because I think there are often teams (specifically mid/low major teams) who often fall in that next four out bucket, but because of lack of strength during the conference tournament they need to beat a specific team in the tournament to build their resume enough for at-large consideration, but they often see that team in the conference championship game...That was the argument NBCSports used about URI last season -- The only win that could have gotten them at-large consideration during the conference tournament was Dayton, but to play Dayton they'd have to see them in the tourney championship, and to see them in the tourney championship meant they were really auto-bid or bust anyways. I think a team like that this year is SMU -- Depending where you look they are typically 6-10 out ... Is beating Cincinnati and Wichita St (bubble team) enough to lock them in as an at-large especially if other teams keep winning, or are they looking AAC or bust? If it's AAC or bust, they aren't a bubble team.

[RhowdyRam02]

To me, the bubble consists of:

Last Four Byes
Last Four In
First Four Out
Next Four Out

At the end of the regular season, we were not on any of those.

Right, that's literally how everyone describes it

Why so hung up on whether or not we would of been on the bubble, depending upon our A10T results if it happened?
It is all total conjecture at this point and there was no NCAAT, so what difference does it make?
We weren't playing good at the time and even worse this year.
I am sure Thorr and Cox are having plenty of conversations on expectations and the direction of this program.
I am glad he is going to make the decision and not us.

Because
A. Facts matter and
B. People are using a fake definition of bubble to make Cox sound like he's done a better job than he has

[Jersey77]

Retain your key players. That has to be number one.

If you lose one of Ish, Mitchells, Walker, Martin, I think short of a miracle NCAA appearance and win you have to dump Cox. If he can't retain the talent he recruits, what does it matter?

NCAA at large at a minimum. Cox did not walk into a rebuild. When the contract was signed the "bar" we were told was A10 championships and NCAA appearances. Obviously no one takes that literally, as in we should dance every year and hang an A-10 banner, but you take that to mean that you are competing for a title and a birth, giving yourselves a chance to make it, and getting better as the season progresses.

Cox is a clear 0-3. The reason he was remotely in the same stratosphere last year was because of Jeff Dowtin. Dave has not replaced Jeff (which would be hard to do), and the absence of someone as good as el jefe has exposed Cox for what he is as a coach - unprepared, unable to make adjustments, running a system that either doesn't work or he can't get players for.

He did not walk into a rebuild, but it is clear we are starting one now.

The question is - do you now give him 4 years after this new rebuild, and think that he'll develop and change?

Agree with the shit or get off the pot line of thinking, in 3 years I don't think anyone could point to one thing that has objectively gotten better like you could with Dan Hurley. Not in results, the eye test, recruiting, player development...nothing. Hurley had a rebuild. Cox had a turnkey program with pieces that an average coach should've been able to be on the bubble both years. Jeff, Cyril, Fatts - with Tyrese as a freshman. If Jeff was kept on the ball (which any average coach would do), that team is at least top 4 in the A10 the first year, and dancing the next.

It's like in Step Brothers when Dale farts and the tuxedos look fucked up. Losing Jeff put a lot into perspective about what this team is capable of under this coach, and I don't think you can like it.

Cox's first year we were no way an NCAAT bubble team, there were just too many teams in our conference better than us, period.
We lost 4 starters and almost all our scoring, plus you have a coach in his 1st year ever running a program.

No telling what any coach would of done with Fatts. If he weren't going to be on the ball, he probably would of been gone.
What was he supposed to be a CG at 5'9" who isn't a good shooter (35% FG, 28% 3pt) and mostly guarding much bigger CG's?
I am sure playing off the ball at CG would of been his best path to the next level, yeah right.

Why would Fatts have to defend bigger guards? Jeff was still out there with him..... What's better? Jeff running our offense and putting our guys in great positions to score, including Fatts or having Fatts hold the ball until the end of the shot clock and throwing up contested 3s? Part of the reason Fatts shot such a low % was the type of shots he took. Jeff made everyone around him better when he ran our offense.

That may be true, but many times it is difficult switching off assignments, depending who is guarding you, especially in up tempo games.
Besides exactly where would you put Fatts on offense, that is the dilemma.
I am sure once DH left, Fatts and Cox had a long conversation what his role would be and that affected his decision to stay.

[Jersey77]

Right, that's literally how everyone describes it

Why so hung up on whether or not we would of been on the bubble, depending upon our A10T results if it happened?
It is all total conjecture at this point and there was no NCAAT, so what difference does it make?
We weren't playing good at the time and even worse this year.
I am sure Thorr and Cox are having plenty of conversations on expectations and the direction of this program.
I am glad he is going to make the decision and not us.

Because
A. Facts matter and
B. People are using a fake definition of bubble to make Cox sound like he's done a better job than he has

I am sure Thorr is going to base his decision on whether or not to retain Cox based on speculation if we would or wouldn't been bubble team last year. Really

[Rhody15]

I’m not saying this is what I would do, but I think if Cox makes the NIT next year, he’ll get a small extension.

[rjsuperfly66]

I’m not saying this is what I would do, but I think if Cox makes the NIT next year, he’ll get a small extension.

The challenge becomes recruiting ... One year left on a coach is a lame duck. What's a small extension? If its an extra year, coaches are going to demolish Cox on the trail that URI doesn't believe in him. That's kind of why I think next year is make or break for URI with Cox. I'd think it has to be 4 years min so at least he can sell to recruits he'd be there for their career...

[steveystuds06]

Cox's first year we were no way an NCAAT bubble team, there were just too many teams in our conference better than us, period.
We lost 4 starters and almost all our scoring, plus you have a coach in his 1st year ever running a program.

No telling what any coach would of done with Fatts. If he weren't going to be on the ball, he probably would of been gone.
What was he supposed to be a CG at 5'9" who isn't a good shooter (35% FG, 28% 3pt) and mostly guarding much bigger CG's?
I am sure playing off the ball at CG would of been his best path to the next level, yeah right.

Why would Fatts have to defend bigger guards? Jeff was still out there with him..... What's better? Jeff running our offense and putting our guys in great positions to score, including Fatts or having Fatts hold the ball until the end of the shot clock and throwing up contested 3s? Part of the reason Fatts shot such a low % was the type of shots he took. Jeff made everyone around him better when he ran our offense.

That may be true, but many times it is difficult switching off assignments, depending who is guarding you, especially in up tempo games.
Besides exactly where would you put Fatts on offense, that is the dilemma.
I am sure once DH left, Fatts and Cox had a long conversation what his role would be and that affected his decision to stay.

Sure it could cause some issues, but overall you can make it work. Fatts was a pest on D against guards of all different sizes.

I would have tested him off the ball. We obviously would have the ball in his hands a lot regardless, but he's a speedy guard with and without the ball. I would have had Fatts learn how to score without dribbling. If he improved how to move without the ball, read screens, and catch and shoot I think he would have had a higher shooting %. He's also a fantastic slasher. Jeff finding Fatts cutting and then Fatts either finishing around the hoop or dropping the ball off to a big could have created easier scoring chances. Maybe this wouldn't have worked, but the point is we literally watched Fatts force horrible shots over and over for three straight years. Nothing changed. Why not see what Fatts could do off the ball?

Ya, I'm sure Cox told Fatts whatever he wanted...It was crystal clear Fatts had Cox on a string. That's why we are where we are right now.

[steviep123]

So here's a question for the good of the group --- The program basically has to poop or get off the pot with Cox after next season with an extension or a termination. What do you think it would take for Cox to earn an extension?

NCAA Tournament?
Top 5 but with promising core/recruits?
Top 7 but with promising core/recruits?

Retain your key players. That has to be number one.

If you lose one of Ish, Mitchells, Walker, Martin, I think short of a miracle NCAA appearance and win you have to dump Cox. If he can't retain the talent he recruits, what does it matter?

NCAA at large at a minimum. Cox did not walk into a rebuild. When the contract was signed the "bar" we were told was A10 championships and NCAA appearances. Obviously no one takes that literally, as in we should dance every year and hang an A-10 banner, but you take that to mean that you are competing for a title and a birth, giving yourselves a chance to make it, and getting better as the season progresses.

Cox is a clear 0-3. The reason he was remotely in the same stratosphere last year was because of Jeff Dowtin. Dave has not replaced Jeff (which would be hard to do), and the absence of someone as good as el jefe has exposed Cox for what he is as a coach - unprepared, unable to make adjustments, running a system that either doesn't work or he can't get players for.

He did not walk into a rebuild, but it is clear we are starting one now.

The question is - do you now give him 4 years after this new rebuild, and think that he'll develop and change?

Agree with the shit or get off the pot line of thinking, in 3 years I don't think anyone could point to one thing that has objectively gotten better like you could with Dan Hurley. Not in results, the eye test, recruiting, player development...nothing. Hurley had a rebuild. Cox had a turnkey program with pieces that an average coach should've been able to be on the bubble both years. Jeff, Cyril, Fatts - with Tyrese as a freshman. If Jeff was kept on the ball (which any average coach would do), that team is at least top 4 in the A10 the first year, and dancing the next.

It's like in Step Brothers when Dale farts and the tuxedos look fucked up. Losing Jeff put a lot into perspective about what this team is capable of under this coach, and I don't think you can like it.

100% on this....and I'll channel my inner Rod here...there is no reason we shouldn't expect to be a double bye top 4 A10 team each year. That should be the bar - while it doesn't necessarily mean a bid every single year - the occasional off year should be the exception and not the rule. Rod used to say we should model ourselves after the Temple and Xavier programs where they are in the picture every year. There is no good reason this shouldn't be the goal.

[SmartyBarrett]

Retain your key players. That has to be number one.

Not only is it a big season coming up, it's a big offseason that has already started. If the above can happen, it's step one in a long process. But step one will be complete.

[Blue Man]

So here's a question for the good of the group --- The program basically has to poop or get off the pot with Cox after next season with an extension or a termination. What do you think it would take for Cox to earn an extension?

NCAA Tournament?
Top 5 but with promising core/recruits?
Top 7 but with promising core/recruits?

Retain your key players. That has to be number one.

If you lose one of Ish, Mitchells, Walker, Martin, I think short of a miracle NCAA appearance and win you have to dump Cox. If he can't retain the talent he recruits, what does it matter?

NCAA at large at a minimum. Cox did not walk into a rebuild. When the contract was signed the "bar" we were told was A10 championships and NCAA appearances. Obviously no one takes that literally, as in we should dance every year and hang an A-10 banner, but you take that to mean that you are competing for a title and a birth, giving yourselves a chance to make it, and getting better as the season progresses.

Cox is a clear 0-3. The reason he was remotely in the same stratosphere last year was because of Jeff Dowtin. Dave has not replaced Jeff (which would be hard to do), and the absence of someone as good as el jefe has exposed Cox for what he is as a coach - unprepared, unable to make adjustments, running a system that either doesn't work or he can't get players for.

He did not walk into a rebuild, but it is clear we are starting one now.

The question is - do you now give him 4 years after this new rebuild, and think that he'll develop and change?

Agree with the shit or get off the pot line of thinking, in 3 years I don't think anyone could point to one thing that has objectively gotten better like you could with Dan Hurley. Not in results, the eye test, recruiting, player development...nothing. Hurley had a rebuild. Cox had a turnkey program with pieces that an average coach should've been able to be on the bubble both years. Jeff, Cyril, Fatts - with Tyrese as a freshman. If Jeff was kept on the ball (which any average coach would do), that team is at least top 4 in the A10 the first year, and dancing the next.

It's like in Step Brothers when Dale farts and the tuxedos look fucked up. Losing Jeff put a lot into perspective about what this team is capable of under this coach, and I don't think you can like it.

Cox's first year we were no way an NCAAT bubble team, there were just too many teams in our conference better than us, period.
We lost 4 starters and almost all our scoring, plus you have a coach in his 1st year ever running a program.

No telling what any coach would of done with Fatts. If he wasn't going to be on the ball, he probably would of been gone.
What was he supposed to be a CG at 5'9" who isn't a good shooter (35% FG, 28% 3pt) and mostly guarding much bigger CG's?
I am sure playing off the ball at CG would of been his best path to the next level, yeah right.

Again, the larger point being that Cox was said coach who couldn't get that done. If you keep Dan Hurley, that team dances. If you hire Rick Pitino, that team dances.

Regardless of first year head coach or not, you moved your best player at the most important position on the court, away from where he was at his best to the detriment of the team.

Also, no other coach allows Fatts to a) openly disrespect the coach and do his own thing at the end of a game, and the coach laughs about it in the presser, and b) shoot that many shots without SOME TYPE of adjustment.

Seriously do people remember how bad Fatts was his sophomore year? How many games he single-handedly lost us because he was taking 5-6 3 pointers a game and most of the year connecting at an EIGHTEEN percent?

Cox made ZERO adjustments and just let Fatts "shoot his way out of it" - aka losing games to let a player figure it out instead of COACHING.

Some of my favorites from that year for Fatts:

2-15, 0-10 from 3 against Charleston (11 pt loss)
4-15, 1-7 from 3 against Stony Brook (10 pt loss)
2-13, 1-5 from 3 against PC (9 pt loss)
4-16, 0-6 from 3 against Haw (8 pt loss)
5-16, 0-7 from 3 against GMU (17 pt loss)
3-13, 1-5 from 3 against Duq (5 pt loss) - blew a 19 point lead.

etc, etc, because I'm getting dizzy looking at how awful that season went. But all of that was before our 5 game losing streak in February.

So while I understand you saying "Cox was a 1st year coach" do you understand that many of us are pissed because those same passive, "let them do what they want" tendencies exist today.

To me that says it is who he is, he lets the players dictate what they're going to do, that's why they love playing for him. But if that won you basketball games, the highest paid state employee wouldn't be a coach.

[rambone 78]

Cox is who he is.

Anybody who expects him to do a 180 and completely change as a coach, is delusional.

It's way past that point.

Thorr needs to look at the big picture, and not make excuses for the many issues surrounding the coaching.

Keeping DC just kicks the can another year down the road. Doesn't improve anything, just prolongs the agony.

[theblueram]

Cox is who he is.

Anybody who expects him to do a 180 and completely change as a coach, is delusional.

It's way past that point.

Thorr needs to look at the big picture, and not make excuses for the many issues surrounding the coaching.

Keeping DC just kicks the can another year down the road. Doesn't improve anything, just prolongs the agony.

I believe he has played either a 9,10 or 11 man rotation in the 3 years since he took over. He is an aau coach trying to coach that way in D1. Ain't gonna work.

[Jersey77]

Retain your key players. That has to be number one.

If you lose one of Ish, Mitchells, Walker, Martin, I think short of a miracle NCAA appearance and win you have to dump Cox. If he can't retain the talent he recruits, what does it matter?

NCAA at large at a minimum. Cox did not walk into a rebuild. When the contract was signed the "bar" we were told was A10 championships and NCAA appearances. Obviously no one takes that literally, as in we should dance every year and hang an A-10 banner, but you take that to mean that you are competing for a title and a birth, giving yourselves a chance to make it, and getting better as the season progresses.

Cox is a clear 0-3. The reason he was remotely in the same stratosphere last year was because of Jeff Dowtin. Dave has not replaced Jeff (which would be hard to do), and the absence of someone as good as el jefe has exposed Cox for what he is as a coach - unprepared, unable to make adjustments, running a system that either doesn't work or he can't get players for.

He did not walk into a rebuild, but it is clear we are starting one now.

The question is - do you now give him 4 years after this new rebuild, and think that he'll develop and change?

Agree with the shit or get off the pot line of thinking, in 3 years I don't think anyone could point to one thing that has objectively gotten better like you could with Dan Hurley. Not in results, the eye test, recruiting, player development...nothing. Hurley had a rebuild. Cox had a turnkey program with pieces that an average coach should've been able to be on the bubble both years. Jeff, Cyril, Fatts - with Tyrese as a freshman. If Jeff was kept on the ball (which any average coach would do), that team is at least top 4 in the A10 the first year, and dancing the next.

It's like in Step Brothers when Dale farts and the tuxedos look fucked up. Losing Jeff put a lot into perspective about what this team is capable of under this coach, and I don't think you can like it.

Cox's first year we were no way an NCAAT bubble team, there were just too many teams in our conference better than us, period.
We lost 4 starters and almost all our scoring, plus you have a coach in his 1st year ever running a program.

No telling what any coach would of done with Fatts. If he wasn't going to be on the ball, he probably would of been gone.
What was he supposed to be a CG at 5'9" who isn't a good shooter (35% FG, 28% 3pt) and mostly guarding much bigger CG's?
I am sure playing off the ball at CG would of been his best path to the next level, yeah right.

Again, the larger point being that Cox was said coach who couldn't get that done. If you keep Dan Hurley, that team dances. If you hire Rick Pitino, that team dances.

Regardless of first year head coach or not, you moved your best player at the most important position on the court, away from where he was at his best to the detriment of the team.

Also, no other coach allows Fatts to a) openly disrespect the coach and do his own thing at the end of a game, and the coach laughs about it in the presser, and b) shoot that many shots without SOME TYPE of adjustment.

Seriously do people remember how bad Fatts was his sophomore year? How many games he single-handedly lost us because he was taking 5-6 3 pointers a game and most of the year connecting at an EIGHTEEN percent?

Cox made ZERO adjustments and just let Fatts "shoot his way out of it" - aka losing games to let a player figure it out instead of COACHING.

Some of my favorites from that year for Fatts:

2-15, 0-10 from 3 against Charleston (11 pt loss)
4-15, 1-7 from 3 against Stony Brook (10 pt loss)
2-13, 1-5 from 3 against PC (9 pt loss)
4-16, 0-6 from 3 against Haw (8 pt loss)
5-16, 0-7 from 3 against GMU (17 pt loss)
3-13, 1-5 from 3 against Duq (5 pt loss) - blew a 19 point lead.

etc, etc, because I'm getting dizzy looking at how awful that season went. But all of that was before our 5 game losing streak in February.

So while I understand you saying "Cox was a 1st year coach" do you understand that many of us are pissed because those same passive, "let them do what they want" tendencies exist today.

To me that says it is who he is, he lets the players dictate what they're going to do, that's why they love playing for him. But if that won you basketball games, the highest paid state employee wouldn't be a coach.

DH left and we weren't able to keep him.
Neither him or any other coach would of got us to the NCAAT that year, that's disrespecting all the teams better than us in the A10 that year.

I am not here to defend Cox because I am also upset with our current situation and don't agree with many of his decisions.
Regardless we can complain all we want, but the ultimate determination will be made by Thorr.
I will continue to root for this team and get frustrated, but will have to be patient with this staff and hope things get better.

After all " Is This Our Best Team Ever", sorry I couldn't resist.

[ace]

So here's a question for the good of the group --- The program basically has to poop or get off the pot with Cox after next season with an extension or a termination. What do you think it would take for Cox to earn an extension?

NCAA Tournament?
Top 5 but with promising core/recruits?
Top 7 but with promising core/recruits?

Retain your key players. That has to be number one.

If you lose one of Ish, Mitchells, Walker, Martin, I think short of a miracle NCAA appearance and win you have to dump Cox. If he can't retain the talent he recruits, what does it matter?

I would be very surprised if any of them left, VERY surprised. I’d feel better about things if they had a group of freshmen becoming sophomores that had gotten some experience and showed something. The injury to Betrand is brutal for him personally but that kind of stuff happens. They’ll have to get a transfer guard, and they can’t waste time next season getting everyone up to speed. It already feels like their last game was weeks ago. Hopefully something interesting happens to build momentum once the Fall comes. Cox and company haven’t been in the position before to have to drum up interest in the program. It was already getting back when he arrived. Yes, winning cures all, so let’s hope for that.

[ramster]

Final Summary for David Cox 2020-2021 Season
1 A
3 B’s
33 C’s
30 D's
13 F's
1 Incomplete

81 Total Votes

Final Summary for David Cox 2019-2020 Season
10 A’s
48 B’s
18 C’s
0 D's
1 F
5 Incomplete

82 Total Votes

[theblueram]

Final Summary for David Cox 2020-2021 Season
1 A
3 B’s
33 C’s
30 D's
13 F's
1 Incomplete

81 Total Votes

Final Summary for David Cox 2019-2020 Season
10 A’s
48 B’s
18 C’s
0 D's
1 F
5 Incomplete

82 Total Votes

If these were my kids grades in Sophomore and Junior year in high school, they would be going to military school.

[rambone 78]

I gave him a C+ after last season. Good first 2/3 of the season, not so good last 1/3.

This season, giving him a D was generous.

[DeanDome88]

Final Summary for David Cox 2020-2021 Season
1 A
3 B’s
33 C’s
30 D's
13 F's
1 Incomplete

81 Total Votes

Final Summary for David Cox 2019-2020 Season
10 A’s
48 B’s
18 C’s
0 D's
1 F
5 Incomplete

82 Total Votes

Based on the total votes the program has not lost much interest, at least in cyberspace.

[phipsiGD'11]

I would say this board has not lost much interest. The program is close to being irrelevant.

This board is going to be around the same level of interest no matter what's going on.

[Blue Man]

A C is still passing right?

I can't believe that "well the pandemic happened" is enough to excuse a team as listless and disappointing as what we watched all year. Like we were the only team to have the pandemic affect us...even though it literally NEVER affected the program in the way it did so many others.

No pauses. We played more games than anyone in the conference but VCU. We had more of an opportunity to "gel" and yet somehow we got infinitely worse.

The "bar" was A-10 championships, and we weren't even in the same stratosphere to compete for one.

Losing Jeff Dowtin really put a highlighter on how poor of a job DC has done here, and how lucky we were to have Jeff cover up those deficiencies. It also showed how much of a disservice Cox did to Jeff and this team by playing him out of position and letting Fatts chuck wild shots up without thinking for the last 3 years.

No one was asking or thinking that we should've been beating Wisconsin. But to give a passing grade to a 10-15 team that was embarrassing to watch is really pathetic. It's sad to know that most of our engaged fans are ok with that.

[rambone 78]

Blue Man, a C grade is defined as "average" overall by you, me, and everyone else I would think.

No way shape or form should Cox have gotten a C.

He was WAY worse than a C. I actually considered giving him the ol' F bomb as a grade, but gave him some credit for some of the transfers he brought in.