Re: A10 Outlook for 2022-23
Posted: Sun May 22, 2022 12:04 pm
Math is hard.Running Ram wrote: ↑2 years ago yes, but he's ten thousand and twelve percent committed, so there's that.
Math is hard.Running Ram wrote: ↑2 years ago yes, but he's ten thousand and twelve percent committed, so there's that.
Don’t forget the qualifier used: the word, cautiously. Certainly not a sure thing and probably closer to hopeful on my spectrum of optimism. Or, maybe it is closer to hopelessly optimistic which, may be closer to delusional. Shit, brain fart…now I forgot the hell am I talking about.Blue Man wrote: ↑2 years agoBeing optimistic that a Dave Cox team was going to do well after all we had seen, was stupid and is a personal problem.
Being purposely pessimistic that an Archie Miller team is going to disappoint because a Dave Cox team did is also really stupid and lacks logic.
I don’t see us as an NCAA team, but I think we’ll be a good team.
Please just don’t compare this team to any team in the last 4 years.
Speaking of ten thousand and twelve percent and math being hard, I had a math prof my freshman year but can’t remember his name. It was an 8am class. The guy was brilliant. Maybe, too brilliant?Rhody74 wrote: ↑2 years agoMath is hard.Running Ram wrote: ↑2 years ago yes, but he's ten thousand and twelve percent committed, so there's that.
Just curious....did he post a "not committed" (to UMass) before committing (to UMass)?Running Ram wrote: ↑2 years ago yes, but he's ten thousand and twelve percent committed, so there's that.
I say he is One thousand and twelve percent #notcommitted. However, that is less than ten thousand and twelve percent so, my confidence level is much lower in answering your question, NYG.NYGFan_Section208 wrote: ↑2 years agoJust curious....did he post a "not committed" (to UMass) before committing (to UMass)?Running Ram wrote: ↑2 years ago yes, but he's ten thousand and twelve percent committed, so there's that.
This day in age, that means there’s a 40% chance he transfers after his sophomore year…Rhody74 wrote: ↑2 years agoMath is hard.Running Ram wrote: ↑2 years ago yes, but he's ten thousand and twelve percent committed, so there's that.
Thanks JD
It’s ironic that all these players put on their pictures “Committed” when there has never been less CommitmentSandorClegane wrote: ↑2 years agoThis day in age, that means there’s a 40% chance he transfers after his sophomore year…Rhody74 wrote: ↑2 years agoMath is hard.Running Ram wrote: ↑2 years ago yes, but he's ten thousand and twelve percent committed, so there's that.
"Committed (for now)" or "Committed (until I am not)"ramster wrote: ↑2 years agoIt’s ironic that all these players put on their pictures “Committed” when there has never been less CommitmentSandorClegane wrote: ↑2 years agoThis day in age, that means there’s a 40% chance he transfers after his sophomore year…
In College Basketball.
Maybe should be Committed for the next 9 months then I’ll be back on the open market?
Yep. Or just pick another word. Committed just doesn’t fit or apply anymore. Kind of like Senior Night is quickly losing its luster.steviep123 wrote: ↑2 years ago"Committed (for now)" or "Committed (until I am not)"ramster wrote: ↑2 years agoIt’s ironic that all these players put on their pictures “Committed” when there has never been less CommitmentSandorClegane wrote: ↑2 years ago
This day in age, that means there’s a 40% chance he transfers after his sophomore year…
In College Basketball.
Maybe should be Committed for the next 9 months then I’ll be back on the open market?
#notyetuncommittedramster wrote: ↑2 years agoYep. Or just pick another word. Committed just doesn’t fit or apply anymore. Kind of like Senior Night is quickly losing its luster.
Pretty much how Mark Emmert viewed it too. $2.9 million a year for a guy who was a disasterSGreenwell wrote: ↑2 years ago I preferred it like it was back in my day, when players were at a college for life and you had to use the ladder to get the ball out of the peach bucket after each basket.
…….early nominee for All Hair Team?
If you included UMass and one of either St. Bonaventure or St. Joe's that would be a sweet 10 team league right there.
Blueman you are more optimistic than me but I would be ecstatic if you are correct.
I think I'm almost being too bullish on Mason since yes, they return a lot, but they still had a losing record in conference and overall. I think everyone is just overrating them because they over-performed relative to where they normally finish.Jersey77 wrote: ↑1 year agoBlueman you are more optimistic than me but I would be ecstatic if you are correct.
Looking at the rosters for 22-23, I would put GM and Davidson ahead of us.
Also Lunardi has Loyola/Chicago as a bubble team, they have an all-conference guard and added some nice pieces including BE PF/C Bryce Golden.
Don't sleep on UMass and GW either.
If I were to guess, we would finish somewhere around 7-10, depending on how favorable our in-conference schedule is.
We have so many unknowns which makes it very difficult to predict.
Our new players, which have very little or no Div. 1 experience, would really need to step up and have an immediate impact.
Bray is probably the exception and maybe the only certain starter at this time, although I can see Archie going with some of our returnees.
I could easily be wrong but think you are not bullish enough on GM.Blue Man wrote: ↑1 year agoI think I'm almost being too bullish on Mason since yes, they return a lot, but they still had a losing record in conference and overall. I think everyone is just overrating them because they over-performed relative to where they normally finish.Jersey77 wrote: ↑1 year agoBlueman you are more optimistic than me but I would be ecstatic if you are correct.
Looking at the rosters for 22-23, I would put GM and Davidson ahead of us.
Also Lunardi has Loyola/Chicago as a bubble team, they have an all-conference guard and added some nice pieces including BE PF/C Bryce Golden.
Don't sleep on UMass and GW either.
If I were to guess, we would finish somewhere around 7-10, depending on how favorable our in-conference schedule is.
We have so many unknowns which makes it very difficult to predict.
Our new players, which have very little or no Div. 1 experience, would really need to step up and have an immediate impact.
Bray is probably the exception and maybe the only certain starter at this time, although I can see Archie going with some of our returnees.
Davidson always finds a way, but they lose so much of their production next year. I could see them finishing 3rd or 10th.
I'm not a believer in Loyola. Porter Moser ain't walking through that door. If we get seeded different in 2018, we'd have ended their run 2 rounds earlier and they're not a name brand. Last year their best wins were bad P5 teams, and they scored 41 points in an NCAA game. They will not be some juggernaut in the A10. They're an MVC team. I'll be blown away if they finish higher than 6.
UMass will be a wild one. Martin is another one of those coaches who is good but not good? Like I love him, I hate that he's at UMass because I hate them but love him. Who knows how fast he can cobble together a bunch of pieces. Like he always landed NBA-level talent but it seemed like they underperformed by and large.
But I agree - ton of unknowns. I compare this to an early Hurley team - looking at defense as a leader which will keep us in a lot more games.
Archie is different than Dan in that he plays a system and Dan just gets his guys to be animals in a man-to-man d.
But - why I'm incredibly optimistic is that I believe defense will keep us in games, but Archie has said over and over that our calling card will be shooting. He'll be recruiting shooters. We have a major talent upgrade coming in, and most importantly an all-conference PG leading it.
I get the tempered expectations, especially after all we've been through. But I'm not tempering shit. I think we're going to be back in a big way. Immediately.
How could anyone rank any of our freshman in the top 10. All of them are complete unknowns. Some of the guys will probably surprise us and some of the others will be in the transfer portal within two years. We only need to hit on a couple of them. It is the new college basketball.
Jersey, this is great bulletin board material for the freshman. I wonder if Archie and staff will post it for them to see and be regularly reminded? I sure hope so.
Now that the roster is locked in I'm with you.Blue Man wrote: ↑1 year agoI think I'm almost being too bullish on Mason since yes, they return a lot, but they still had a losing record in conference and overall. I think everyone is just overrating them because they over-performed relative to where they normally finish.Jersey77 wrote: ↑1 year agoBlueman you are more optimistic than me but I would be ecstatic if you are correct.
Looking at the rosters for 22-23, I would put GM and Davidson ahead of us.
Also Lunardi has Loyola/Chicago as a bubble team, they have an all-conference guard and added some nice pieces including BE PF/C Bryce Golden.
Don't sleep on UMass and GW either.
If I were to guess, we would finish somewhere around 7-10, depending on how favorable our in-conference schedule is.
We have so many unknowns which makes it very difficult to predict.
Our new players, which have very little or no Div. 1 experience, would really need to step up and have an immediate impact.
Bray is probably the exception and maybe the only certain starter at this time, although I can see Archie going with some of our returnees.
Davidson always finds a way, but they lose so much of their production next year. I could see them finishing 3rd or 10th.
I'm not a believer in Loyola. Porter Moser ain't walking through that door. If we get seeded different in 2018, we'd have ended their run 2 rounds earlier and they're not a name brand. Last year their best wins were bad P5 teams, and they scored 41 points in an NCAA game. They will not be some juggernaut in the A10. They're an MVC team. I'll be blown away if they finish higher than 6.
UMass will be a wild one. Martin is another one of those coaches who is good but not good? Like I love him, I hate that he's at UMass because I hate them but love him. Who knows how fast he can cobble together a bunch of pieces. Like he always landed NBA-level talent but it seemed like they underperformed by and large.
But I agree - ton of unknowns. I compare this to an early Hurley team - looking at defense as a leader which will keep us in a lot more games.
Archie is different than Dan in that he plays a system and Dan just gets his guys to be animals in a man-to-man d.
But - why I'm incredibly optimistic is that I believe defense will keep us in games, but Archie has said over and over that our calling card will be shooting. He'll be recruiting shooters. We have a major talent upgrade coming in, and most importantly an all-conference PG leading it.
I get the tempered expectations, especially after all we've been through. But I'm not tempering shit. I think we're going to be back in a big way. Immediately.
You have to respect the Loyola program and they been fun to watch the last few years, but their team for much of the conference season was very shaky to say the least. This is coming from someone who bet a lot of their games and in many cases they were money lines which saved me. I think they would have had 6 loses in the A-10 last year the way they were playing when conference play startedPeterRamTime wrote: ↑1 year agoNow that the roster is locked in I'm with you.Blue Man wrote: ↑1 year agoI think I'm almost being too bullish on Mason since yes, they return a lot, but they still had a losing record in conference and overall. I think everyone is just overrating them because they over-performed relative to where they normally finish.Jersey77 wrote: ↑1 year ago
Blueman you are more optimistic than me but I would be ecstatic if you are correct.
Looking at the rosters for 22-23, I would put GM and Davidson ahead of us.
Also Lunardi has Loyola/Chicago as a bubble team, they have an all-conference guard and added some nice pieces including BE PF/C Bryce Golden.
Don't sleep on UMass and GW either.
If I were to guess, we would finish somewhere around 7-10, depending on how favorable our in-conference schedule is.
We have so many unknowns which makes it very difficult to predict.
Our new players, which have very little or no Div. 1 experience, would really need to step up and have an immediate impact.
Bray is probably the exception and maybe the only certain starter at this time, although I can see Archie going with some of our returnees.
Davidson always finds a way, but they lose so much of their production next year. I could see them finishing 3rd or 10th.
I'm not a believer in Loyola. Porter Moser ain't walking through that door. If we get seeded different in 2018, we'd have ended their run 2 rounds earlier and they're not a name brand. Last year their best wins were bad P5 teams, and they scored 41 points in an NCAA game. They will not be some juggernaut in the A10. They're an MVC team. I'll be blown away if they finish higher than 6.
UMass will be a wild one. Martin is another one of those coaches who is good but not good? Like I love him, I hate that he's at UMass because I hate them but love him. Who knows how fast he can cobble together a bunch of pieces. Like he always landed NBA-level talent but it seemed like they underperformed by and large.
But I agree - ton of unknowns. I compare this to an early Hurley team - looking at defense as a leader which will keep us in a lot more games.
Archie is different than Dan in that he plays a system and Dan just gets his guys to be animals in a man-to-man d.
But - why I'm incredibly optimistic is that I believe defense will keep us in games, but Archie has said over and over that our calling card will be shooting. He'll be recruiting shooters. We have a major talent upgrade coming in, and most importantly an all-conference PG leading it.
I get the tempered expectations, especially after all we've been through. But I'm not tempering shit. I think we're going to be back in a big way. Immediately.
Wasn't sure there for a while. Looked very developmental.
Considering how good our coaching staff is, especially how well they coach defense, the guys we kept on the roster, talent and expereince at guard and size in the frontcourt, we compete easily.
This does feel like early Dan, but fastforward to year 3 with Dan. I think these guys have a bubble team ceiling.
Strongly disagree about Loyola. I watched them a lot last year and their style of play was virtually the same under Valentine. He can coach. Dude won't have a problem getting players there either. Loyola is very likely going to compete for a league title immediately. I mean, if they were in the A-10 last year they probably win the regular season title over Davidson. They just play great defense, shoot the ball well and have athletes. I'll be shocked if they struggle in the A-10.
Yeah they were kinda shaky and dropped a few games. For whatever reason Davidson wasn't except for when they played us lol.RamStock wrote: ↑1 year agoYou have to respect the Loyola program and they been fun to watch the last few years, but their team for much of the conference season was very shaky to say the least. This is coming from someone who bet a lot of their games and in many cases they were money lines which saved me. I think they would have had 6 loses in the A-10 last year the way they were playing when conference play startedPeterRamTime wrote: ↑1 year agoNow that the roster is locked in I'm with you.Blue Man wrote: ↑1 year ago
I think I'm almost being too bullish on Mason since yes, they return a lot, but they still had a losing record in conference and overall. I think everyone is just overrating them because they over-performed relative to where they normally finish.
Davidson always finds a way, but they lose so much of their production next year. I could see them finishing 3rd or 10th.
I'm not a believer in Loyola. Porter Moser ain't walking through that door. If we get seeded different in 2018, we'd have ended their run 2 rounds earlier and they're not a name brand. Last year their best wins were bad P5 teams, and they scored 41 points in an NCAA game. They will not be some juggernaut in the A10. They're an MVC team. I'll be blown away if they finish higher than 6.
UMass will be a wild one. Martin is another one of those coaches who is good but not good? Like I love him, I hate that he's at UMass because I hate them but love him. Who knows how fast he can cobble together a bunch of pieces. Like he always landed NBA-level talent but it seemed like they underperformed by and large.
But I agree - ton of unknowns. I compare this to an early Hurley team - looking at defense as a leader which will keep us in a lot more games.
Archie is different than Dan in that he plays a system and Dan just gets his guys to be animals in a man-to-man d.
But - why I'm incredibly optimistic is that I believe defense will keep us in games, but Archie has said over and over that our calling card will be shooting. He'll be recruiting shooters. We have a major talent upgrade coming in, and most importantly an all-conference PG leading it.
I get the tempered expectations, especially after all we've been through. But I'm not tempering shit. I think we're going to be back in a big way. Immediately.
Wasn't sure there for a while. Looked very developmental.
Considering how good our coaching staff is, especially how well they coach defense, the guys we kept on the roster, talent and expereince at guard and size in the frontcourt, we compete easily.
This does feel like early Dan, but fastforward to year 3 with Dan. I think these guys have a bubble team ceiling.
Strongly disagree about Loyola. I watched them a lot last year and their style of play was virtually the same under Valentine. He can coach. Dude won't have a problem getting players there either. Loyola is very likely going to compete for a league title immediately. I mean, if they were in the A-10 last year they probably win the regular season title over Davidson. They just play great defense, shoot the ball well and have athletes. I'll be shocked if they struggle in the A-10.
This ^^^PeterRamTime wrote: ↑1 year agoYeah they were kinda shaky and dropped a few games. For whatever reason Davidson wasn't except for when they played us lol.RamStock wrote: ↑1 year agoYou have to respect the Loyola program and they been fun to watch the last few years, but their team for much of the conference season was very shaky to say the least. This is coming from someone who bet a lot of their games and in many cases they were money lines which saved me. I think they would have had 6 loses in the A-10 last year the way they were playing when conference play startedPeterRamTime wrote: ↑1 year ago
Now that the roster is locked in I'm with you.
Wasn't sure there for a while. Looked very developmental.
Considering how good our coaching staff is, especially how well they coach defense, the guys we kept on the roster, talent and expereince at guard and size in the frontcourt, we compete easily.
This does feel like early Dan, but fastforward to year 3 with Dan. I think these guys have a bubble team ceiling.
Strongly disagree about Loyola. I watched them a lot last year and their style of play was virtually the same under Valentine. He can coach. Dude won't have a problem getting players there either. Loyola is very likely going to compete for a league title immediately. I mean, if they were in the A-10 last year they probably win the regular season title over Davidson. They just play great defense, shoot the ball well and have athletes. I'll be shocked if they struggle in the A-10.
I bet on Loyola a lot too. I just remember thinking while watching them how they looked better than anyone in the A-10.
I mean I doubt they'll win the league next year, but it wouldn't shock me. If Davidson can come from the southern conference and immediately win the A-10 then Loyola can. At least Loyola can beat P5 teams and win NCAA tournament games on a yearly basis unlike annoyingly good but really not that good Davidson.
Both coaches get their guys to play hard and both most definitely have a system.Archie is different than Dan in that he plays a system and Dan just gets his guys to be animals in a man-to-man d.
Dan Year 3 had 2 bona fide future All Conference talents (Hass and EC) and a very highly regarded FR (JT). This squad, at least right now, doesn't have any of that. Not sure that's a fair comparison. Guys like Weston and Harris obv have that potential but there is just no evidence to say its a definite. At this point in Dan's tenure you knew Hass and EC were cornerstone players. And that Jared was going to be a star.PeterRamTime wrote: ↑1 year agoNow that the roster is locked in I'm with you.Blue Man wrote: ↑1 year agoI think I'm almost being too bullish on Mason since yes, they return a lot, but they still had a losing record in conference and overall. I think everyone is just overrating them because they over-performed relative to where they normally finish.Jersey77 wrote: ↑1 year ago
Blueman you are more optimistic than me but I would be ecstatic if you are correct.
Looking at the rosters for 22-23, I would put GM and Davidson ahead of us.
Also Lunardi has Loyola/Chicago as a bubble team, they have an all-conference guard and added some nice pieces including BE PF/C Bryce Golden.
Don't sleep on UMass and GW either.
If I were to guess, we would finish somewhere around 7-10, depending on how favorable our in-conference schedule is.
We have so many unknowns which makes it very difficult to predict.
Our new players, which have very little or no Div. 1 experience, would really need to step up and have an immediate impact.
Bray is probably the exception and maybe the only certain starter at this time, although I can see Archie going with some of our returnees.
Davidson always finds a way, but they lose so much of their production next year. I could see them finishing 3rd or 10th.
I'm not a believer in Loyola. Porter Moser ain't walking through that door. If we get seeded different in 2018, we'd have ended their run 2 rounds earlier and they're not a name brand. Last year their best wins were bad P5 teams, and they scored 41 points in an NCAA game. They will not be some juggernaut in the A10. They're an MVC team. I'll be blown away if they finish higher than 6.
UMass will be a wild one. Martin is another one of those coaches who is good but not good? Like I love him, I hate that he's at UMass because I hate them but love him. Who knows how fast he can cobble together a bunch of pieces. Like he always landed NBA-level talent but it seemed like they underperformed by and large.
But I agree - ton of unknowns. I compare this to an early Hurley team - looking at defense as a leader which will keep us in a lot more games.
Archie is different than Dan in that he plays a system and Dan just gets his guys to be animals in a man-to-man d.
But - why I'm incredibly optimistic is that I believe defense will keep us in games, but Archie has said over and over that our calling card will be shooting. He'll be recruiting shooters. We have a major talent upgrade coming in, and most importantly an all-conference PG leading it.
I get the tempered expectations, especially after all we've been through. But I'm not tempering shit. I think we're going to be back in a big way. Immediately.
Wasn't sure there for a while. Looked very developmental.
Considering how good our coaching staff is, especially how well they coach defense, the guys we kept on the roster, talent and expereince at guard and size in the frontcourt, we compete easily.
This does feel like early Dan, but fastforward to year 3 with Dan. I think these guys have a bubble team ceiling.
Strongly disagree about Loyola. I watched them a lot last year and their style of play was virtually the same under Valentine. He can coach. Dude won't have a problem getting players there either. Loyola is very likely going to compete for a league title immediately. I mean, if they were in the A-10 last year they probably win the regular season title over Davidson. They just play great defense, shoot the ball well and have athletes. I'll be shocked if they struggle in the A-10.
I tend to agree. But I do think this feels like the NIT Hurley team as a ceiling, with an A10 tourney run/birth if we get hot in Brooklyn isn't out of the question.bigappleram wrote: ↑1 year agoDan Year 3 had 2 bona fide future All Conference talents (Hass and EC) and a very highly regarded FR (JT). This squad, at least right now, doesn't have any of that. Not sure that's a fair comparison. Guys like Weston and Harris obv have that potential but there is just no evidence to say its a definite. At this point in Dan's tenure you knew Hass and EC were cornerstone players. And that Jared was going to be a star.PeterRamTime wrote: ↑1 year agoNow that the roster is locked in I'm with you.Blue Man wrote: ↑1 year ago
I think I'm almost being too bullish on Mason since yes, they return a lot, but they still had a losing record in conference and overall. I think everyone is just overrating them because they over-performed relative to where they normally finish.
Davidson always finds a way, but they lose so much of their production next year. I could see them finishing 3rd or 10th.
I'm not a believer in Loyola. Porter Moser ain't walking through that door. If we get seeded different in 2018, we'd have ended their run 2 rounds earlier and they're not a name brand. Last year their best wins were bad P5 teams, and they scored 41 points in an NCAA game. They will not be some juggernaut in the A10. They're an MVC team. I'll be blown away if they finish higher than 6.
UMass will be a wild one. Martin is another one of those coaches who is good but not good? Like I love him, I hate that he's at UMass because I hate them but love him. Who knows how fast he can cobble together a bunch of pieces. Like he always landed NBA-level talent but it seemed like they underperformed by and large.
But I agree - ton of unknowns. I compare this to an early Hurley team - looking at defense as a leader which will keep us in a lot more games.
Archie is different than Dan in that he plays a system and Dan just gets his guys to be animals in a man-to-man d.
But - why I'm incredibly optimistic is that I believe defense will keep us in games, but Archie has said over and over that our calling card will be shooting. He'll be recruiting shooters. We have a major talent upgrade coming in, and most importantly an all-conference PG leading it.
I get the tempered expectations, especially after all we've been through. But I'm not tempering shit. I think we're going to be back in a big way. Immediately.
Wasn't sure there for a while. Looked very developmental.
Considering how good our coaching staff is, especially how well they coach defense, the guys we kept on the roster, talent and expereince at guard and size in the frontcourt, we compete easily.
This does feel like early Dan, but fastforward to year 3 with Dan. I think these guys have a bubble team ceiling.
Strongly disagree about Loyola. I watched them a lot last year and their style of play was virtually the same under Valentine. He can coach. Dude won't have a problem getting players there either. Loyola is very likely going to compete for a league title immediately. I mean, if they were in the A-10 last year they probably win the regular season title over Davidson. They just play great defense, shoot the ball well and have athletes. I'll be shocked if they struggle in the A-10.