KeaneyBlue - The URI Basketball Forum

RI_Bred wrote: ↑1 month ago

Rhody15 wrote: ↑1 month ago

Reason 4849488327 I’ll never get excited for recruits this day and age.

Agree. And I have to ask, why does this situation, which will happen again and again ad nauseum with zero oversite as of now, make you feel like fans should be contributing money to the program? Honest question, still open for debate.

I think most have figgered out where they land on it...and some might change...but, "money to the program" seems to have multiple mouths now. The school? The facilities? Season tix? NIL? So many options. I still say, if you can afford anything, and it's proximally practical for you, start with season tix. The best game day experiences begin with a full house. After that...have at it....maybe Thorr or Stone has a suggestion

ETA: Which raises the point...
I could contribute to "URI" through day of giving or whatever, and my company would actually match part of that (maybe all of it to a certain amount, not sure). Would Thorr rather have me give that way, or via the Collective, which...by the way...someone I know said they were reading a book series called "The Collective" and it sounded tres creepy.

I'm down with season tickets (still) for now. Everything else is "trust but verify".

NYGFan_Section208 wrote: ↑1 month ago

RamStock wrote: ↑1 month ago

NYGFan_Section208 wrote: ↑1 month ago

I didn't really understand (still don't) the excitement over an undersized freshman point guard to come in and play a key role. He may turn into a star someday, but chances are slim to none it's happening as a freshman. It's mostly a year to year game now. There's no reason I can see not to have an experienced PG running the show every year now. I mean, why wouldn't you?

This might be true in the case of Hammond, but Lawrence was a backup guard for Nebraska that average over 6ppg. He looks like he will be a solid player and good teammate, but no difference maker playing with guys like House and Luis who aren’t exactly world beaters in my opinion. People love our guards now, but we have no good three point shooters and still have no point guard. We are losing anyway so it would have fun to watch Lawrence develop

I'm going to assume you meant, "watch Hammond develop." And just ask...in today's landscape, where every day is 'today', why would it be funner to watch a guy develop...than to watch a guy just be good from the get-go? Knowing, you're only guaranteed ONE YEAR. Just..... 1.

I think the answer is that Hammond had a chance to be a player that we don’t get too often. I don’t feel the same way about Lawrence. Will Lawrence be better next year? Probably, but either way this team isn’t going to the tourney so it doesn’t matter to me about a couple extra wins. I do agree that everything is 1 year contracts now and makes it pointless to ever recruit freshman again

RamStock wrote: ↑1 month ago

NYGFan_Section208 wrote: ↑1 month ago

RamStock wrote: ↑1 month ago

This might be true in the case of Hammond, but Lawrence was a backup guard for Nebraska that average over 6ppg. He looks like he will be a solid player and good teammate, but no difference maker playing with guys like House and Luis who aren’t exactly world beaters in my opinion. People love our guards now, but we have no good three point shooters and still have no point guard. We are losing anyway so it would have fun to watch Lawrence develop

I'm going to assume you meant, "watch Hammond develop." And just ask...in today's landscape, where every day is 'today', why would it be funner to watch a guy develop...than to watch a guy just be good from the get-go? Knowing, you're only guaranteed ONE YEAR. Just..... 1.

I think the answer is that Hammond had a chance to be a player that we don’t get too often. I don’t feel the same way about Lawrence. Will Lawrence be better next year? Probably, but either way this team isn’t going to the tourney so it doesn’t matter to me about a couple extra wins. I do agree that everything is 1 year contracts now and makes it pointless to ever recruit freshman again

So, knowing that's the case...for one year...next year...prefer Hammond or Lawrence? I just think that's an easy one. In this day and age, if you can recruit over a high level incoming freshman, you do it...maybe that's a new thing

steveystuds06 wrote: ↑1 month ago

Billyboy78 wrote: ↑1 month ago Lamar Odom played for one year. How much did he change the program?

I think it's different when a program like ours lands one of the best NBA prospects in the country. Someone like that can make a big difference for one year. As much as we all love Ben Hammond, he's not a one-and-done guard who's going to go on to be one of the best 6th men in the NBA and win multiple rings.

And that's my point. Lamar wasn't a program changer. A program changer changes the direction of the program. After Lamar was gone, how many years was it before we got back to the NCAA's? Yeah, I know that Harrick leaving was a big part of that, but the success we had with Lamar for one year didn't build momentum for the program, resulting in getting a great coach and great players. Exactly the opposite, some of the worst years in the history of the program immediately after he left.

But if Harrick stayed there were high level recruits coming in behind Lamar. Harrick leaving and hiring Jerry D was the reason everything went south.

In my opinion, Harrick and Odom got the Ryan Center built. That qualifies them as program changers.

NYGFan_Section208 wrote: ↑1 month ago

KevanBoyles wrote: ↑1 month ago Looks like Archie saw this coming with the Recruitment of Lawrence.

I didn't really understand (still don't) the excitement over an undersized freshman point guard to come in and play a key role. He may turn into a star someday, but chances are slim to none it's happening as a freshman. It's mostly a year to year game now. There's no reason I can see not to have an experienced PG running the show every year now. I mean, why wouldn't you?

IMO relative to the way this system now works, majority of college coaches shouldn’t even recruit freshmen. Big waste of time and resources. If they don’t play, they leave. If they play too much, they leave because they easily can and for the reasons we’re all familiar with. Save all budget and time and shop in the portal every season. Of course there are some exceptions to this, top 10 level type thing, but from what I see not many. I didn’t expect it to all work this way but you’re really more at risk starting over if you recruit too many HS players. Growing old no longer an option.

Maybe just maybe today will the arrival of a wide body, rim protector, free throw shooter, rebounder…….yeah, I don’t want much

Rhody_NYCT wrote: ↑1 month ago

Rhodyg wrote: ↑1 month ago

Billyboy78 wrote: ↑1 month ago

How can someone who is here for 1 year be a program changer?

All it takes is one good season in this new landscape for the future of a program to make a 180.

I agree with this statement to a certain degree. With all of the shifting and personal changes every year, I DO BELIEVE YOU CAN TURN A "TEAM" AROUND IN ONE YEAR. And that would make for a fun season. But, just as quickly, the team can go south the following year. So, I'm not so sure you can turn a "program" around but you can have a quick turnaround from one year to the next. This is another way of saying, the current state of college hoops sucks. Haha.

One more thing, are we going to bash David Cox for the rest of our lives. Some of you need to get over it. I kinda miss the Baron bashing. Anyone who followed Hurley was going to take us downhill. It's reality. We all know in hindsight he wasn't the best hire. But come on already. He must have done something to a few of you personally. I don't get the obsession with blaming the guy every which way. He's long gone. Move on.

“I kinda miss the Baron bashing”

“I don’t get the obsession with blaming the guy (Cox)”

Wut?

Why is David Cox some sacred cow around here?

Coaches that drive programs into the dirt get the blame until the program is rebuilt, that’s how it’s always been. Then, once rebuilt, you can look back at the good times and have a more balanced review.

Baron basically took and rebuilt a program to a certain degree of competitiveness, and then lost it, got desperate for some recruits, and crashed and burned. There were at least some fun NIT games and competitive seasons.

Dave Cox, conversely, was handed the 2nd best URI program ever inherited by a coach. 3 all conference players, an NBA draft pick, and the highest rated class in school history.

With Covid and now the new era of college basketball, the damage he did to this program feels almost irreparable. Had we maintained the Hurley-era brand and subsequent investments that would’ve come with that success, we’d probably be in a great place by now.

So yeah, we’re going to complain about him until Archie brings us back to relevance. Just like we did with Baron during the Hurley years.

Just posted this over in the recruiting thread, but warrants a double take:

The new reality is that portal movement will be the primary way to build rosters. Then fill with the incoming frosh with potential. Just the opposite of the NBA teams, who tend to shy away from 4/5 year college players and focus on the "children" with potential that they hope they can develop. Bizarro world, for sure.

NHRamFan wrote: ↑1 month ago Just posted this over in the recruiting thread, but warrants a double take:

The new reality is that portal movement will be the primary way to build rosters. Then fill with the incoming frosh with potential. Just the opposite of the NBA teams, who tend to shy away from 4/5 year college players and focus on the "children" with potential that they hope they can develop. Bizarro world, for sure.

It is important to have a combination of both, plus Jucos.
You still have to recruit hard at prep level to try and bring in young talent plus maintain connections and relationships which may also help with players which may be familiar with you previously that later decide to transfer.
Remember both Cam and Fuchs were true freshmen last season.

Look at Loyola, they have the #1 recruiting class in the A10 with 4 new players, including at least one 4*.
In addition, they added (PG) Moore and (PF) DeLoach from the portal and aren't done yet.
I think Valentine has the right idea.

The hope is that the Portal is governed and then some order is established. It’s the Wild West right now.

Jersey77 wrote: ↑1 month ago

NHRamFan wrote: ↑1 month ago Just posted this over in the recruiting thread, but warrants a double take:

The new reality is that portal movement will be the primary way to build rosters. Then fill with the incoming frosh with potential. Just the opposite of the NBA teams, who tend to shy away from 4/5 year college players and focus on the "children" with potential that they hope they can develop. Bizarro world, for sure.

It is important to have a combination of both, plus Jucos.
You still have to recruit hard at prep level to try and bring in young talent plus maintain connections and relationships which may also help with players which may be familiar with you previously that later decide to transfer.
Remember both Cam and Fuchs were true freshmen last season.

Look at Loyola, they have the #1 recruiting class in the A10 with 4 new players, including at least one 4*.
In addition, they added (PG) Moore and (PF) DeLoach from the portal and aren't done yet.
I think Valentine has the right idea.

But I was told her Loyola was a terrible add to the conference because they were a gym school?

I'm still not sold on Loyola. Wake me up when they actually bring something to the table. No, making the NIT and losing to Bradley in the first round isn't bringing something to the table

RhowdyRam02 wrote: ↑1 month ago I'm still not sold on Loyola. Wake me up when they actually bring something to the table. No, making the NIT and losing to Bradley in the first round isn't bringing something to the table

They bring plenty to the table as noted by the presidents’s council, even regardless of their record. Adding the Chicago market was a benefit in negotiating media contracts. Also, nothing wrong with winning the A10 regular season in just your 2nd year.

RhowdyRam02 wrote: ↑1 month ago I'm still not sold on Loyola. Wake me up when they actually bring something to the table. No, making the NIT and losing to Bradley in the first round isn't bringing something to the table

Top 100 team, won the conference.

Helped bring the A10 to the 8th ranked conference.

Did all that in just their second year in the A10.

Very good recruiting class and transfers coming in.

Jersey77 wrote: ↑1 month ago

RhowdyRam02 wrote: ↑1 month ago I'm still not sold on Loyola. Wake me up when they actually bring something to the table. No, making the NIT and losing to Bradley in the first round isn't bringing something to the table

They bring plenty to the table as noted by the presidents’s council, even regardless of their record. Adding the Chicago market was a benefit in negotiating media contracts. Also, nothing wrong with winning the A10 regular season in just your 2nd year.

UC San Diego transfer Francis Nwaokorie committed to Loyola today

Started every game
6’7” JR
11.3 ppg,
5.5 rebounds
60% FG
34% 3P hitting 51 of 150

ramster wrote: ↑1 month ago

Jersey77 wrote: ↑1 month ago

RhowdyRam02 wrote: ↑1 month ago I'm still not sold on Loyola. Wake me up when they actually bring something to the table. No, making the NIT and losing to Bradley in the first round isn't bringing something to the table

They bring plenty to the table as noted by the presidents’s council, even regardless of their record. Adding the Chicago market was a benefit in negotiating media contracts. Also, nothing wrong with winning the A10 regular season in just your 2nd year.

UC San Diego transfer Francis Nwaokorie committed to Loyola today

Started every game
6’7” JR
11.3 ppg,
5.5 rebounds
60% FG
34% 3P hitting 51 of 150

Huge add Ramster. They will have solid depth and already about 7 players capable of starting. Even with all their graduating losses, they still return starters Des, Rubin, and Dawson. I originally thought they would really slip this season, but may now contend again.

Loyola is doing what I thought Archie would do. They are killing us so far. Hopefully, that will change.

Does anyone have any Insite into the next possible player to commit here? Little birdies, rumors, ect.

This is just a random thought and not related to any of the players mentioned in this thread...but it would be interesting to know how many players transfer because its their own decision and how many transfer because the coach essentially pushes them out. I know we'll never know that info for a whole variety of reasons, but I would be really curious to know an actual breakdown on that. I feel like it's always just assumed that a player leaving is their choice, but I know that's not always the case.

Simply not recruiting freshmen because it's unlikely they stay is too short-sighted. If you don't land a 4-year guy and he announces intent to transfer, do you have a leg up because he's familiar with you, your school, your staff, etc? Does a kid maybe chase the money the first go-around and is more inclined to look for fit round 2?

Also I don't just blame the players... coaches can also be more impatient with players thinking they can "upgrade" in the portal. Why invest in a project when you can go out and try to land his ceiling every year?

Spook5365 wrote: ↑1 month ago

NYGFan_Section208 wrote: ↑1 month ago

KevanBoyles wrote: ↑1 month ago Looks like Archie saw this coming with the Recruitment of Lawrence.

I didn't really understand (still don't) the excitement over an undersized freshman point guard to come in and play a key role. He may turn into a star someday, but chances are slim to none it's happening as a freshman. It's mostly a year to year game now. There's no reason I can see not to have an experienced PG running the show every year now. I mean, why wouldn't you?

IMO relative to the way this system now works, majority of college coaches shouldn’t even recruit freshmen. Big waste of time and resources. If they don’t play, they leave. If they play too much, they leave because they easily can and for the reasons we’re all familiar with. Save all budget and time and shop in the portal every season. Of course there are some exceptions to this, top 10 level type thing, but from what I see not many. I didn’t expect it to all work this way but you’re really more at risk starting over if you recruit too many HS players. Growing old no longer an option.

A valid strategy. A pragmatic one and unfortunate, imho, because a consequence is prep recruits will miss out on opportunities to play at many good programs thus, having their options limited.

That said, I am in favor of what is best for Rhody basketball getting back to relevancy and the NCAAT.

Yeah you have to still recruit freshmen. Yes guys portal like crazy, but you still have to try. It's the best way to maintain as much continuity as possible.

Jdrums#3 wrote: ↑1 month ago

Spook5365 wrote: ↑1 month ago

NYGFan_Section208 wrote: ↑1 month ago

I didn't really understand (still don't) the excitement over an undersized freshman point guard to come in and play a key role. He may turn into a star someday, but chances are slim to none it's happening as a freshman. It's mostly a year to year game now. There's no reason I can see not to have an experienced PG running the show every year now. I mean, why wouldn't you?

IMO relative to the way this system now works, majority of college coaches shouldn’t even recruit freshmen. Big waste of time and resources. If they don’t play, they leave. If they play too much, they leave because they easily can and for the reasons we’re all familiar with. Save all budget and time and shop in the portal every season. Of course there are some exceptions to this, top 10 level type thing, but from what I see not many. I didn’t expect it to all work this way but you’re really more at risk starting over if you recruit too many HS players. Growing old no longer an option.

A valid strategy. A pragmatic one and unfortunate, imho, because a consequence is prep recruits will miss out on opportunities to play at many good programs thus, having their options limited.

That said, I am in favor of what is best for Rhody basketball getting back to relevancy and the NCAAT.

Completely disagree.

A. The strategy won't work, especially at a school like URI, unless we up our NIL game by a lot, and
B. It's not pragmatic, it's a Chicken Little, sky is falling reaction to a player decommitting to us

rjsuperfly66 wrote: ↑1 month ago Simply not recruiting freshmen because it's unlikely they stay is too short-sighted. If you don't land a 4-year guy and he announces intent to transfer, do you have a leg up because he's familiar with you, your school, your staff, etc? Does a kid maybe chase the money the first go-around and is more inclined to look for fit round 2?

Also I don't just blame the players... coaches can also be more impatient with players thinking they can "upgrade" in the portal. Why invest in a project when you can go out and try to land his ceiling every year?

I see it more as a shift in emphasis. Emphasize the portal players and resources over prep recruiting but do not stop prep recruiting. It is a shift in priorities only.

There still may be prep recruits that want to come in to a program, develop and remain vs just seeking the best offer. They may be harder to find but those would be the ones I would have an eye out for.

Freshman recruiting should still be a small part of the picture for reasons stated above, but the main focus has to be on the portal for stepping stone schools like URI.

RhowdyRam02 wrote: ↑1 month ago

Jdrums#3 wrote: ↑1 month ago

Spook5365 wrote: ↑1 month ago

IMO relative to the way this system now works, majority of college coaches shouldn’t even recruit freshmen. Big waste of time and resources. If they don’t play, they leave. If they play too much, they leave because they easily can and for the reasons we’re all familiar with. Save all budget and time and shop in the portal every season. Of course there are some exceptions to this, top 10 level type thing, but from what I see not many. I didn’t expect it to all work this way but you’re really more at risk starting over if you recruit too many HS players. Growing old no longer an option.

A valid strategy. A pragmatic one and unfortunate, imho, because a consequence is prep recruits will miss out on opportunities to play at many good programs thus, having their options limited.

That said, I am in favor of what is best for Rhody basketball getting back to relevancy and the NCAAT.

Completely disagree.

A. The strategy won't work, especially at a school like URI, unless we up our NIL game by a lot, and
B. It's not pragmatic, it's a Chicken Little, sky is falling reaction to a player decommitting to us

02, looking at it objectively, it may or may not. We haven’t attempted it and as far as I know, no other similar program has. This is just discussion towards speculating what is best for Rhody. Good post.

Normally, I am more of a spread of risk type. In relation to roster building that would mean keeping all options on the table but emphasizing some and not others when things are fluid, like cbb is now with the no sit rule.

Of course, the lingering emotional angst of the Hammond decision has clouded my objectivity for a time but I will revert back to my norm eventually.

I suppose some schools will maybe have the advantage of recruiting local talented freshman that always wanted to play for Ole State U. We don’t have that talent.

Jdrums#3 wrote: ↑1 month ago

RhowdyRam02 wrote: ↑1 month ago

Jdrums#3 wrote: ↑1 month ago

A valid strategy. A pragmatic one and unfortunate, imho, because a consequence is prep recruits will miss out on opportunities to play at many good programs thus, having their options limited.

That said, I am in favor of what is best for Rhody basketball getting back to relevancy and the NCAAT.

Completely disagree.

A. The strategy won't work, especially at a school like URI, unless we up our NIL game by a lot, and
B. It's not pragmatic, it's a Chicken Little, sky is falling reaction to a player decommitting to us

02, looking at it objectively, it may or may not. We haven’t attempted it and as far as I know, no other similar program has. This is just discussion towards speculating what is best for Rhody. Good post.

Normally, I am more of a spread of risk type. In relation to roster building that would mean keeping all options on the table but emphasizing some and not others when things are fluid, like cbb is now with the no sit rule.

Of course, the lingering emotional angst of the Hammond decision has clouded my objectivity for a time but I will revert back to my norm eventually.

With player movement unrestricted the way it is ...I think just get the best group out there that you can every year ... Signing a freshman is implied loyalty on behalf of the school, which seems like a waste

It’s looking pretty likely that Loyola Chicago is gonna make a lot of us eat crow. It’s early of course but might want to start planning a KB birdie barbecue…

steveystuds06 wrote: ↑1 month ago Loyola is doing what I thought Archie would do. They are killing us so far. Hopefully, that will change.

Is it really fair to compare ourselves to them? They had one bad year after a bunch of key players graduated and got right back on track. Their program was waaaaay healthier than ours. I know some thought they'd really struggle to adjust, but obviously the culture they built under Porter Moser still exists there. They even had 3 or 4 guys from their last NCAA team on the roster this year.

32–6 15–3 Final Four
20–14 12–6 NIT first round
21–11 13–5 No postseason
26–5 16–2 Sweet Sixteen
25–8 13–5 NCAA first round

Before one bad year.

I just don't feel jealous of them because they were in a totally different boat.

There are 13 current college basketball players that we recruited to come to URI and were on the roster as freshmen. 2 are still here, and I'd say it's unlikely that those 2 finish here. What's the point?

The system worked before. The portal is the problem. Control that, you settle player , coach, NIL issues.

Billyboy78 wrote: ↑1 month ago There are 13 current college basketball players that we recruited to come to URI and were on the roster as freshmen. 2 are still here, and I'd say it's unlikely that those 2 finish here. What's the point?

$ounds to me like $ not well $pent

commit to URI and I will commit to the player

ElmCityRhody wrote: ↑1 month ago

Billyboy78 wrote: ↑1 month ago There are 13 current college basketball players that we recruited to come to URI and were on the roster as freshmen. 2 are still here, and I'd say it's unlikely that those 2 finish here. What's the point?

$ounds to me like $ not well $pent

commit to URI and I will commit to the player

Commitments don't exist anymore. The NLI is a waste of breathe. Players don't have to honor it. They can just enter the portal.

Jersey77 wrote: ↑1 month ago

RhowdyRam02 wrote: ↑1 month ago I'm still not sold on Loyola. Wake me up when they actually bring something to the table. No, making the NIT and losing to Bradley in the first round isn't bringing something to the table

They bring plenty to the table as noted by the presidents’s council, even regardless of their record. Adding the Chicago market was a benefit in negotiating media contracts. Also, nothing wrong with winning the A10 regular season in just your 2nd year.

I think Valentine will get a P5 job soon he seems young and hungry

RhowdyRam02 wrote: ↑1 month ago I'm still not sold on Loyola. Wake me up when they actually bring something to the table. No, making the NIT and losing to Bradley in the first round isn't bringing something to the table

Good chance Loyola is not sold on us..

Rhodyram wrote: ↑1 month ago

RhowdyRam02 wrote: ↑1 month ago I'm still not sold on Loyola. Wake me up when they actually bring something to the table. No, making the NIT and losing to Bradley in the first round isn't bringing something to the table

Good chance Loyola is not sold on us..

Yes, what do we bring to the table? Here comes the debate. Great hoops facilities, “rich” history,
6 recent years of suck, couple of flashes in the pan, farmtown market, no sellouts(except PC), my point is we rarely look at ourselves from the outside window. Sorry, back to the topic.

Rhodyram wrote: ↑1 month ago

RhowdyRam02 wrote: ↑1 month ago I'm still not sold on Loyola. Wake me up when they actually bring something to the table. No, making the NIT and losing to Bradley in the first round isn't bringing something to the table

Good chance Loyola is not sold on us..

Always helps to see things from the opposite perspective, imho.

Interesting to see the NBE's Villanova get their #3 Scorer in the Nation recruited away by Iowa of the Big 10 as a huge gap exists with Caitlin Clark #1 in WNBA Draft.
P5 flexing it's muscle

theblueram wrote: ↑1 month ago

ElmCityRhody wrote: ↑1 month ago

Billyboy78 wrote: ↑1 month ago There are 13 current college basketball players that we recruited to come to URI and were on the roster as freshmen. 2 are still here, and I'd say it's unlikely that those 2 finish here. What's the point?

$ounds to me like $ not well $pent

commit to URI and I will commit to the player

Commitments don't exist anymore. The NLI is a waste of breathe. Players don't have to honor it. They can just enter the portal.

I think there is a practical answer that involves NIL money. Kids are signing contracts with collectives, there should be a punishment for bailing early. Personally I think any kid who signs with a NIL collective should be a 2 year commitment to that collective. They can transfer freely at any time but they can’t sign a new contract with another team collective in that 2 year period.

And or have penalty payment for leaving? No matter what mechanism is applied, difficult coaching situation having a player that doesn’t want to be there, bury them on the bench has its downside.

Skinn and GM also busy in the portal.

Jersey77 wrote: ↑1 month ago Skinn and GM also busy in the portal.

Sign that Hammond is likely not headed to GMU

Hammond is 99% likely aiming higher imo.

If Hammond goes to PC I’ll KMS