So I brought my two nephews with me to the Stony Brook game. I'll be bringing them plus their sister to this one. Their dad is a PC graduate, but doesn't care about basketball, so I'm trying my best to get them into URI. Clearly it's very important that we don't suck Saturday
Take down the Robert Carothers banner and fix the concession stand lines
RhowdyRam02 wrote: ↑5 years ago
So I brought my two nephews with me to the Stony Brook game. I'll be bringing them plus their sister to this one. Their dad is a PC graduate, but doesn't care about basketball, so I'm trying my best to get them into URI. Clearly it's very important that we don't suck Saturday
The niece is going to make all the difference here, I can just feel it!
I almost always try to get there ~45-50 minutes before tipoff, especially on weekends, but I have another commitment on Saturday which means I probably will walk in the door of the RC AFTER 4 in the line to get in with all the jabronis.
Heading into this weekend the A10 Standings with the all important 4 First Round Byes at stake:
Tough next 6 scheduled games ahead (except for Fordham) with SLU(H), Davidson(A), Dayton(H), Fordham(H), VCU(A) and Davidson(H)
(7-1) George Mason (13-8)
(6-1) Davidson (15-5)
(6-2) Duquesne (15-6)
(6-2) Dayton (14-7)
(5-2) VCU (14-6)
(5-3) St Louis (14-7)
(4-3) St Bonaventure (8-12) (4-4) URI (11-9)
(3-4) LaSalle (5-14)
(3-5) George Washington (7-14)
(2-6) St josephs (9-12)
(2-6) Richmond (8-13)
(1-7) UMASS (8-13)
(0-8) Fordham (9-12)
URI Games Remaining with current standings:
6th - Saint Louis (H)
2nd -Davidson (A)
3rd T - Dayton (H)
14th - Fordham (H)
5th - VCU (A)
2nd - Davidson (H)
10th - George Washington (H)
3rd T - Dayton (A)
11th - St Josephs (A)
13th - UMASS (H)
In today's ProJo Sports there is an interesting article on how the Patriots became motivated after their devastating loss to Miami. The article contained a quote from Patriots defensive end, Deatrich Wise, which has relevance in Kingston:
"When losers win, they lose focus. When winners lose, they learn from the loss and then they take that lesson forward in life."
The question is does this better describe URI after the VCU win or will it better describe URI after the Duquesne loss????
If we're going to get to 11-7 and 18-12 overall, which was my prediction in the contest, we will have to win ALL of our home games plus a road game.
Absolutely NO margin for error. Losing the Duquesne game made it that much harder. Going 7-3 the rest of the way might only be one game tougher than 6-4, but it was big nevertheless.
11-7 will only get us around a 6 seed.....maybe going 9-9 would be better....in either case we will likely be playing on Thursday come tourney time.
rambone 78 wrote: ↑5 years ago
If we're going to get to 11-7 and 18-12 overall, which was my prediction in the contest, we will have to win ALL of our home games plus a road game.
Absolutely NO margin for error. Losing the Duquesne game made it that much harder. Going 7-3 the rest of the way might only be one game tougher than 6-4, but it was big nevertheless.
11-7 will only get us around a 6 seed.....maybe going 9-9 would be better....in either case we will likely be playing on Thursday come tourney time.
This team will be lucky to go 9-9 in league play. Too inconsistent to expect more. May not get another road win with away games at Dayton, VCU, Davidson, and St Joe's. Wins at home are also no certainties given the horrendous performances put forth versus Stony Brook and George Mason. I think #7 is the ceiling for a seed but with them currently at #8, odds are it could be worse. At any rate, this team will not survive more than a game or two in Brooklyn where it will all end in the second week of March. Only questions that remain are if they can finish with a .500 or better record and stay in the top 150 NET rankings. Welcome to mediocrity and mostly meaningless basketball (save for experience for the future).
I really dislike when coaches complain about “this generation.” Every generation criticizes “kids today,” as if the one before didn’t say the same things about them. And, even if there’s some validity to it, figure it out. They’re also the reason any coach gets to make a nice living.
I really dislike when coaches complain about “this generation.” Every generation criticizes “kids today,” as if the one before didn’t say the same things about them. And, even if there’s some validity to it, figure it out. They’re also the reason any coach gets to make a nice living.
I cringed upon reading the quotations, and have bad vibes about hearing “It’s a process” as it sounds Baronesque to me.
Fact is all 353 D1 teams and all 14 A10 team players are from the same generation - All 14 Head Coaches selected, recruited and are now coaching players from the same generation - next 10 games will say a lot.
I really dislike when coaches complain about “this generation.” Every generation criticizes “kids today,” as if the one before didn’t say the same things about them. And, even if there’s some validity to it, figure it out. They’re also the reason any coach gets to make a nice living.
Sure, but I think progressively over time things have gotten more and more out of hand. Today's society, through Twitter, Instagram, Rivals, Scout, ESPN, Youtube, there is so much exposure from a young age. AAU motives are still the same as they were thirty years ago, but it's all of the extra attention these guys have gotten from such a young age that makes them often think they are better than they are. I've heard many people call it the "instant gratification" society, and I agree with that. Someone doesn't start or play the minutes they want, the first instinct isn't always to work harder and prove it, but to transfer to an easier situation. I think it's often why a roster of strong upperclassmen can match up against the uber-talented five-star teams like Kentucky or Duke in the tournament. Many of those kids weren't just handed roles, they learned to fight for them, and use that edge plus experience to their advantage to make up for some of the athletic/talent deficiencies.
I really dislike when coaches complain about “this generation.” Every generation criticizes “kids today,” as if the one before didn’t say the same things about them. And, even if there’s some validity to it, figure it out. They’re also the reason any coach gets to make a nice living.
I think it's often why a roster of strong upperclassmen can match up against the uber-talented five-star teams like Kentucky or Duke in the tournament. Many of those kids weren't just handed roles, they learned to fight for them, and use that edge plus experience to their advantage to make up for some of the athletic/talent deficiencies.
I really dislike when coaches complain about “this generation.” Every generation criticizes “kids today,” as if the one before didn’t say the same things about them. And, even if there’s some validity to it, figure it out. They’re also the reason any coach gets to make a nice living.
I think it's often why a roster of strong upperclassmen can match up against the uber-talented five-star teams like Kentucky or Duke in the tournament. Many of those kids weren't just handed roles, they learned to fight for them, and use that edge plus experience to their advantage to make up for some of the athletic/talent deficiencies.
Ok, but all those guys are “this generation.”
Sure but are they the exception? I mean, what was the total transfer number last year? 850 student athletes? Every team pretty much loses two transfers per season, and that number has been increasing year over year. A few years ago, people were talking about how 700 transfers was historical, now it's around 850. In three years, that number could very well be between 950-1000 student athletes. That number is unprecedented. It's also why redshirts have been effectively murdered, because programs are weary of giving the student athlete the extra year because they can grad transfer anywhere and play immediately. You have players who move 3x in one career, once as a traditional transfer and once as a grad transfer. Why?
I think it's often why a roster of strong upperclassmen can match up against the uber-talented five-star teams like Kentucky or Duke in the tournament. Many of those kids weren't just handed roles, they learned to fight for them, and use that edge plus experience to their advantage to make up for some of the athletic/talent deficiencies.
Ok, but all those guys are “this generation.”
Sure but are they the exception? I mean, what was the total transfer number last year? 850 student athletes? Every team pretty much loses two transfers per season, and that number has been increasing year over year. A few years ago, people were talking about how 700 transfers was historical, now it's around 850. In three years, that number could very well be between 950-1000 student athletes. That number is unprecedented. It's also why redshirts have been effectively murdered, because programs are weary of giving the student athlete the extra year because they can grad transfer anywhere and play immediately. You have players who move 3x in one career, once as a traditional transfer and once as a grad transfer. Why?
Maybe it’s the way they’re being recruited and the stories they’re told by coaches? Honestly, I find “transfer epidemic” talk to be boring and often unfair and prejudicial against the players. I’m not going to further disrupt the game thread. All of these coaches are working within the same system. I work in education and generally really appreciate coaches, like Cox, who come from an education background. Of course there are some students with which I work that are their own worst enemies, but I’m the adult in the situation, so our job is to figure it out.
ace wrote: ↑5 years ago
Maybe it’s the way they’re being recruited and the stories they’re told by coaches? Honestly, I find “transfer epidemic” talk to be boring and often unfair and prejudicial against the players. I’m not going to further disrupt the game thread. All of these coaches are working within the same system. I work in education and generally really appreciate coaches, like Cox, who come from an education background. Of course there are some students with which I work that are their own worst enemies, but I’m the adult in the situation, so our job is to figure it out.
That's fine and we'll leave it as different opinion, the only thing i would say is you made the comment above "maybe it's the way they're being recruited and the stories they're told by coaches?" That very well could be partly true, but did coaches just start telling these stories and sales pitches in 2010? Coaches have been leveraging players and telling them what they want for years. One of my favorite documentaries was the movie Hoops Dreams from 1994, which illustrated all of the games being played back in the early 90s, and it was going on before then as well.