Blue Man wrote: ↑5 months ago
I mean…this is what some of us have been saying for a year. Give Archie the chance to get his guys, and transition offense is going to happen.
That game wasn’t close, CCSU with some circus shots at the end after the game was well in hand.
Talent, shooting, BBIQ, and good coaching.
I’d feel pretty foolish if I had picked this team below .500. I get it - CCSU yada yada…good basketball is good basketball, no matter the opponent.
Last years team lost their first two games to similar teams, and this board rightly killed them. So I will not be putting qualifiers on a double digit win that was controlled wire to wire for a team of totally new guys.
This team plays good basketball and it will only get better.
Competent PG play, a capable transition offense, and multiple scorers at different levels.
Right coach. Right guys. Go Rhody.
I guess I am not one of the foolish ones, at least yet, since I had them going 16-15.
It is great to win this first game but way too early to start doing cartwheels yet.
Jersey, a 7 win jump over last season is nothing to sneeze at. We are not far apart as I have us at 18 wins which is a 9 win jump.
Either result is a good move in the right direction.
bigappleram wrote: ↑5 months ago
Agree SG. I won’t say they will suck but this is Fordham you don’t just reload there. They lost two all conf level players so to expect them to keep going where they left off seems like massive recency bias.
With Fordham this season - as far as I am concerned - I will believe it when I see it. I can’t see having more confidence in their new players than ours until they show me in a head to head match up.
If they spank us, that will show me. We shall see.
I watched a good portion of the Fordham Wagner game
They certainly don't have anybody like Quissenberry. They had to play as hard as they could possibly play to beat Wagner in OT.
bigappleram wrote: ↑5 months ago
Agree SG. I won’t say they will suck but this is Fordham you don’t just reload there. They lost two all conf level players so to expect them to keep going where they left off seems like massive recency bias.
With Fordham this season - as far as I am concerned - I will believe it when I see it. I can’t see having more confidence in their new players than ours until they show me in a head to head match up.
If they spank us, that will show me. We shall see.
I watched a good portion of the Fordham Wagner game
They certainly don't have anybody like Quissenberry. They had to play as hard as they could possibly play to beat Wagner in OT.
We play Wagner next Tuesday, week from today. Good comparison of Fordham and URI a week apart playing the same team at home.
Fordham beat UMBC in Exhibition Game at Fordham by 4 points. Same team that lost by 1 point at Louisville last night.
With Fordham this season - as far as I am concerned - I will believe it when I see it. I can’t see having more confidence in their new players than ours until they show me in a head to head match up.
If they spank us, that will show me. We shall see.
I watched a good portion of the Fordham Wagner game
They certainly don't have anybody like Quissenberry. They had to play as hard as they could possibly play to beat Wagner in OT.
We play Wagner next Tuesday, week from today. Good comparison of Fordham and URI a week apart playing the same team at home.
Fordham beat UMBC in Exhibition Game at Fordham by 4 points. Same team that lost by 1 point at Louisville last night.
bigappleram wrote: ↑5 months ago
Agree SG. I won’t say they will suck but this is Fordham you don’t just reload there. They lost two all conf level players so to expect them to keep going where they left off seems like massive recency bias.
We took them to the wire at their place. We sucked.
They benefitted from a terrible A10.
I don’t expect them to be traditional Fordham bad, but I don’t expect them to be top 4 either.
4 x
If you say you’re a Rhody fan, I know you are my brother. For you have suffered as I have suffered.
bigappleram wrote: ↑5 months ago
Agree SG. I won’t say they will suck but this is Fordham you don’t just reload there. They lost two all conf level players so to expect them to keep going where they left off seems like massive recency bias.
We took them to the wire at their place. We sucked.
They benefitted from a terrible A10.
I don’t expect them to be traditional Fordham bad, but I don’t expect them to be top 4 either.
Yeah no way they are close to top 4. They were only good last year because of Quisenberry. Without him they are mediocre at best.
I'll go on record and say they finish bottom half of the league. They are going to have a very hard time scoring all year.
steviep123 wrote: ↑5 months ago
The one thing that nobody mentioned (well maybe someone did, but I didn't read all 6 pages) was that Rory Stewart was a dnp. Was he hurt or just not going to be part of the rotation?
In the Postgame Press Conference. Archie mentioned that he was still working back from the thigh contusion but was healthy. Archie did mention he was available to play last night but it was a Coachs desicion for him not getting any minutes. So sounds like he is out the rotation as of now.
In the presser Arch also said he wants to get Cam and Dubs more run
bigappleram wrote: ↑5 months ago
Ok so let’s talk about some of the not great things last night bc it’s all too rosy and the weakness of opponent has to be considered….
-Luis looked uncomfortable with ball pressure and the offense definitely moved better with Ways
-Jaden by no means played hero ball or out of control but there were a few times he had drawn attention and others were open and he didn’t give it up. I specifically remember a play where if he pitched it out Always was wide wide open for a 3
-Foumena was a bit of a black hole with the ball. When he touched whether off a pass or rebound he went up with it. I’m sure just an excitement and anxious thing given he was out a year and thirsty to make his mark.
-we got out hustled a bit for boards in that second half. Despite some depth our bigs looked gassed at times. Also guys were slow on weak side rotations and leaking out for run outs which gave CCSU some second chance opps.
Still beyond excited about the season but few areas of improvement after Game 1
Agree with your points BAR , hoping Luis has a bounce back game on Thursday, Arch says he’s one of the better players on the team so hoping for better production next game
Noticed same thing on Jaden , he’s a bucket getter but hopefully it all happens in the framework of the team and I’m always for passing up a good shot for a great shot , but for sure the kid looks like a scoring machine
bigappleram wrote: ↑5 months ago
Ok so let’s talk about some of the not great things last night bc it’s all too rosy and the weakness of opponent has to be considered….
-Luis looked uncomfortable with ball pressure and the offense definitely moved better with Ways
-Jaden by no means played hero ball or out of control but there were a few times he had drawn attention and others were open and he didn’t give it up. I specifically remember a play where if he pitched it out Always was wide wide open for a 3
-Foumena was a bit of a black hole with the ball. When he touched whether off a pass or rebound he went up with it. I’m sure just an excitement and anxious thing given he was out a year and thirsty to make his mark.
-we got out hustled a bit for boards in that second half. Despite some depth our bigs looked gassed at times. Also guys were slow on weak side rotations and leaking out for run outs which gave CCSU some second chance opps.
Still beyond excited about the season but few areas of improvement after Game 1
Agree with your points BAR , hoping Luis has a bounce back game on Thursday, Arch says he’s one of the better players on the team so hoping for better production next game
Noticed same thing on Jaden , he’s a bucket getter but hopefully it all happens in the framework of the team and I’m always for passing up a good shot for a great shot , but for sure the kid looks like a scoring machine
You can be selfish if you’re gonna get an efficient 25.
Scorers should be selfish. The right shot is the one that goes in. This isn’t like Fatts jacking up 10 3s and hitting one. This kid scores. Let him do whatever he wants.
2 x
If you say you’re a Rhody fan, I know you are my brother. For you have suffered as I have suffered.
bigappleram wrote: ↑5 months ago
Agree SG. I won’t say they will suck but this is Fordham you don’t just reload there. They lost two all conf level players so to expect them to keep going where they left off seems like massive recency bias.
We took them to the wire at their place. We sucked.
They benefitted from a terrible A10.
I don’t expect them to be traditional Fordham bad, but I don’t expect them to be top 4 either.
Yeah no way they are close to top 4. They were only good last year because of Quisenberry. Without him they are mediocre at best.
I'll go on record and say they finish bottom half of the league. They are going to have a very hard time scoring all year.
I watched a fair amount of the Fordham/Wagner game as well and I'm not ready to say they'll be bad, but they wont replicate the success they've recently had. Also realizing that like almost every team who has made up a large portion of their roster from the portal, its going to take time for them set rotations and form chemistry, much like us. Fordham was fortunate to get a waiver for Medor who figured large in their win, hoping we get similar news with Green. The one thing that really stood out to me was how small Wagner is and Fordham did not look to take advantage, our frontcourt will be superior to theirs.
bigappleram wrote: ↑5 months ago
Agree SG. I won’t say they will suck but this is Fordham you don’t just reload there. They lost two all conf level players so to expect them to keep going where they left off seems like massive recency bias.
We took them to the wire at their place. We sucked.
They benefitted from a terrible A10.
I don’t expect them to be traditional Fordham bad, but I don’t expect them to be top 4 either.
But if they (last year) could be top 4...so could this year's Rhody squad. I mean...doesn't seem like the gap from top to bottom is that large or insurmountable...
bigappleram wrote: ↑5 months ago
Agree SG. I won’t say they will suck but this is Fordham you don’t just reload there. They lost two all conf level players so to expect them to keep going where they left off seems like massive recency bias.
We took them to the wire at their place. We sucked.
They benefitted from a terrible A10.
I don’t expect them to be traditional Fordham bad, but I don’t expect them to be top 4 either.
We also beat them in the Ryan Center on a night where Quisenberry scored 33 points
Fordham is nothing without his ridiculous deep threes.
PeterRamTime wrote: ↑5 months ago
Announcer call of the night
"Fighting for the ball, it's a bouncing ball, like seals with a beach ball..and that's a BIG Foumena, coming down with it!"
Did you hear him use the phrase wet as water ??
As silly as that was, the thing I really lost it about and had to turn the volume off was that he tried to engage the other kid on whether water is in fact wet and the kid responded like he was asked to weigh in on the Israel/Palestine conflict and just refused to engage and was pretty awkwardly just insisting on changing the subject. Like, yeah it’s dumb tangent but also if you can’t freewheel a little on low-stakes non-sequiturs then this is probably not the gig for you. That’s a very fundamental part of decent broadcast teams.
I’m appreciative of everyone’s positivity about the game overall but between the disaster of the broadcast and Central Connecticut with the joke of a backdoor cover I honestly came out of the game with a pretty bitter taste in my mouth. Degraded what otherwise should have been a pretty enjoyable night.
1 x
"If you build it, they will come." --Us, circa 2011
PeterRamTime wrote: ↑5 months ago
Announcer call of the night
"Fighting for the ball, it's a bouncing ball, like seals with a beach ball..and that's a BIG Foumena, coming down with it!"
Did you hear him use the phrase wet as water ??
As silly as that was, the thing I really lost it about and had to turn the volume off was that he tried to engage the other kid on whether water is in fact wet and the kid responded like he was asked to weigh in on the Israel/Palestine conflict and just refused to engage and was pretty awkwardly just insisting on changing the subject. Like, yeah it’s dumb tangent but also if you can’t freewheel a little on low-stakes non-sequiturs then this is probably not the gig for you. That’s a very fundamental part of decent broadcast teams.
I’m appreciative of everyone’s positivity about the game overall but between the disaster of the broadcast and Central Connecticut with the joke of a backdoor cover I honestly came out of the game with a pretty bitter taste in my mouth. Degraded what otherwise should have been a pretty enjoyable night.
Was watching the women's game earlier and got reminded of another one of my favorite lines from the new kids!
Something like
"With that 3 the Rams stomp on the door!"
"Rhody is stomping on the door!"
Said something to that effect last night and tonight.
LOLOL
No one stomps on a goddamn door!!! Unless it's to like a cellar or something. Did we banish the opponent to the cellar and then stomp on the door!?
PeterRamTime wrote: ↑5 months ago
Announcer call of the night
"Fighting for the ball, it's a bouncing ball, like seals with a beach ball..and that's a BIG Foumena, coming down with it!"
Did you hear him use the phrase wet as water ??
As silly as that was, the thing I really lost it about and had to turn the volume off was that he tried to engage the other kid on whether water is in fact wet and the kid responded like he was asked to weigh in on the Israel/Palestine conflict and just refused to engage and was pretty awkwardly just insisting on changing the subject. Like, yeah it’s dumb tangent but also if you can’t freewheel a little on low-stakes non-sequiturs then this is probably not the gig for you. That’s a very fundamental part of decent broadcast teams.
I’m appreciative of everyone’s positivity about the game overall but between the disaster of the broadcast and Central Connecticut with the joke of a backdoor cover I honestly came out of the game with a pretty bitter taste in my mouth. Degraded what otherwise should have been a pretty enjoyable night.
As silly as that was, the thing I really lost it about and had to turn the volume off was that he tried to engage the other kid on whether water is in fact wet and the kid responded like he was asked to weigh in on the Israel/Palestine conflict and just refused to engage and was pretty awkwardly just insisting on changing the subject. Like, yeah it’s dumb tangent but also if you can’t freewheel a little on low-stakes non-sequiturs then this is probably not the gig for you. That’s a very fundamental part of decent broadcast teams.
I’m appreciative of everyone’s positivity about the game overall but between the disaster of the broadcast and Central Connecticut with the joke of a backdoor cover I honestly came out of the game with a pretty bitter taste in my mouth. Degraded what otherwise should have been a pretty enjoyable night.
Absolutely hysterical TP , losing it over here
I would guess that those that could actually get to the game (did not have to suffer the broadcast) AND....very big "and", did not wager on the game...likely did not have the same bitter aftertaste?
Another thing about about House and his 25 points. He probably should have had about 30 if the refs would have called some fouls. He got hacked on a few drives to the basket that weren't called. In fact, the first foul they did call was around midway through the 2nd half and Jaden kind of looked up to the sky and laughingly said thank you. He got to the line 5 times. It should have been more like 11 or 12.
Billyboy78 wrote: ↑5 months ago
Another thing about about House and his 25 points. He probably should have had about 30 if the refs would have called some fouls. He got hacked on a few drives to the basket that weren't called. In fact, the first foul they did call was around midway through the 2nd half and Jaden kind of looked up to the sky and laughingly said thank you. He got to the line 5 times. It should have been more like 11 or 12.
House should also benefit from the new block/charge rules.
As silly as that was, the thing I really lost it about and had to turn the volume off was that he tried to engage the other kid on whether water is in fact wet and the kid responded like he was asked to weigh in on the Israel/Palestine conflict and just refused to engage and was pretty awkwardly just insisting on changing the subject. Like, yeah it’s dumb tangent but also if you can’t freewheel a little on low-stakes non-sequiturs then this is probably not the gig for you. That’s a very fundamental part of decent broadcast teams.
I’m appreciative of everyone’s positivity about the game overall but between the disaster of the broadcast and Central Connecticut with the joke of a backdoor cover I honestly came out of the game with a pretty bitter taste in my mouth. Degraded what otherwise should have been a pretty enjoyable night.
Absolutely hysterical TP , losing it over here
I would guess that those that could actually get to the game (did not have to suffer the broadcast) AND....very big "and", did not wager on the game...likely did not have the same bitter aftertaste?
Got to game
Didn't wager
No bitter aftertaste
I'm now used to the sporadic Ry-Fi connection. Sometimes amazingly I feel like I hit the jackpot and the Ry-Fi actually connects- then I think yikes I better hurry before I lose it. Then I do lose it. But only to get a connection later!!! It's like hitting the lottery!!!
As for the broadcasts how many people do you think ESPN+ has watching the game worldwide?
Does anybody watch a URI ESPN+ game other than URI fans?
Billyboy78 wrote: ↑5 months ago
Another thing about about House and his 25 points. He probably should have had about 30 if the refs would have called some fouls. He got hacked on a few drives to the basket that weren't called. In fact, the first foul they did call was around midway through the 2nd half and Jaden kind of looked up to the sky and laughingly said thank you. He got to the line 5 times. It should have been more like 11 or 12.
House should also benefit from the new block/charge rules.
Billyboy78 wrote: ↑5 months ago
Another thing about about House and his 25 points. He probably should have had about 30 if the refs would have called some fouls. He got hacked on a few drives to the basket that weren't called. In fact, the first foul they did call was around midway through the 2nd half and Jaden kind of looked up to the sky and laughingly said thank you. He got to the line 5 times. It should have been more like 11 or 12.
House should also benefit from the new block/charge rules.
What are those new charge/block rules?
I don’t have the exact wording but it has to do with a defender around the basket. The defender has to be set by the time the O player plants his first foot to go up to the basket.
It seems to me to give a the O player more benefit than before. The diff to me seems to be the planting of the foot by the O player whereas the old rule was when the O player went up - if I have that correct. Seems like then,
a slight change in favor of the O vs the D.
Maybe someone here has the exact rule wording available to post.
Last edited by Jdrums#35 months ago, edited 1 time in total.
I would guess that those that could actually get to the game (did not have to suffer the broadcast) AND....very big "and", did not wager on the game...likely did not have the same bitter aftertaste?
Got to game
Didn't wager
No bitter aftertaste
I'm now used to the sporadic Ry-Fi connection. Sometimes amazingly I feel like I hit the jackpot and the Ry-Fi actually connects- then I think yikes I better hurry before I lose it. Then I do lose it. But only to get a connection later!!! It's like hitting the lottery!!!
As for the broadcasts how many people do you think ESPN+ has watching the game worldwide?
Does anybody watch a URI ESPN+ game other than URI fans?
Somebody must know the number each game?
Probably more than we would think.
I think a lot of us here at least watch other A-10 teams. I watch a bunch of different games all year. Especially if I see that it's a close game. Then you got your gamblers. Whenever I gamble I'll watch games I gamble on.
House should also benefit from the new block/charge rules.
What are those new charge/block rules?
I don’t the exact wording but it has to do with a defender around the basket. The defender has to be set by the time the O player plants his first foot to go up to the basket.
It seems to me to give a the O player more benefit than before.
Maybe someone here has the exact rule wording available to post.
Yeah, you pretty much nailed it Jdrums. I hadn't heard about the change until I saw them talking about it during the Baylor game last night. It sounds like its more like the NBA rule now. I think its a good change. No more of defenders sliding under a guy when he is already in the air to draw a charge.
Here is the explanation I came across last night when I looked it up.
"Under the new rule, a defender to draw a charge must be in position at the time an offensive player plants a foot to go airborne to attempt a field goal. If the defender arrives after the offensive player plants a foot to launch towards the hoop, officials will be coached to call a block if or when contact occurs."
House should also benefit from the new block/charge rules.
What are those new charge/block rules?
I don’t have the exact wording but it has to do with a defender around the basket. The defender has to be set by the time the O player plants his first foot to go up to the basket.
It seems to me to give a the O player more benefit than before. The diff to me seems to be the planting of the foot by the O player whereas the old rule was when the O player went up - if I have that correct. Seems like then,
a slight change in favor of the O vs the D.
Maybe someone here has the exact rule wording available to post.
OK thanks, I always think it is a quick eyeball, bang bang play that is a crap shoot on most of them. Difficult job those zebras have for sure.
I would guess that those that could actually get to the game (did not have to suffer the broadcast) AND....very big "and", did not wager on the game...likely did not have the same bitter aftertaste?
Got to game
Didn't wager
No bitter aftertaste
I'm now used to the sporadic Ry-Fi connection. Sometimes amazingly I feel like I hit the jackpot and the Ry-Fi actually connects- then I think yikes I better hurry before I lose it. Then I do lose it. But only to get a connection later!!! It's like hitting the lottery!!!
As for the broadcasts how many people do you think ESPN+ has watching the game worldwide?
Does anybody watch a URI ESPN+ game other than URI fans?
Jersey77 wrote: ↑5 months ago
How is the attendance and student turnout?
There were about 10 students in my section. Students just aren't going to put up with the worst seats in the house when there are better seats open. And it's hard to build a student section when they're scattered throughout the building
4118 for Central Connecticut and 4155 for Fairfield (37 more)
Student turnout was better than I expected but then maybe my expectations were low because the student turnout last February had gotten close to non-existent
Good thing about students is you get a big new batch of Freshmen and most live on campus so easy to get to and walk home from the Ryan Center.
Now important to win and make the experience fun so these students keep coming back, not drop off like last year.
