Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Watching college basketball these days is nearly unbearable at it is. Watching this team isn’t something I can stomach much longer. I have no reason to be excited even when we’re winning. Gottfried will figure out real quick that this isn’t Tuscaloosa. Lot of folks around here actually know what good basketball is.
Like others, not convinced anything will come of it. Too many power brokers with too much to lose. NCAA has no credibility. SACS, not much either. IMO, the whole education industry in this country is shot to hell, and this is just one sad example. Still, I hope the pompous asses over there fry.
^I figured we’d see a slight drop in Buckets’s average once conference play started. I’m guessing he hovers around the 18-20 a night range from here out. As many have observed, he’s not as effective against smaller, quicker 3’s, particularly late in the shot clock, and his 3-point stroke isn’t great. I’d like to see us post him up more, especially when he’s at the four. We’re seeing less and less of that, but we saw it a few times last night.
^I agree that “the substitution” was a good one. I’d much rather see a short leash by Gottfried. I disagree with how long it lasted, or that it was the primary engine that led to a win. During that stretch, the margin actually decreased to a scary point, we still didn’t pass the ball inside, and we were bailed out by Turner. Notre Dame meanwhile didn’t capitalize. And we weren’t better on defense for most of that stretch.
Good win. Ball movement was really good for most of the game. I liked the little full or three-quarter court trap wrinkle. Not convinced that Notre Dame is anything but a bubble team. They have some really good wins but also some bad losses. Very unpredictable.
Also not sure whey some are applauding the second half substitution patterns. We looked bad on offense and defense for a good part of the stretch that Barber and Lee were out.
^Gowolves, glad someone caught that sentence. I was in fact. Not fruit loops, though. It was the Harris Teeter at Cameron Village, so it was probably the aisle with all the eye candy.
Lewis acquitted himself last year fairly well in sparing play, and when forced into action when Brown went down. He did so because he had four guys around him that could score the basketball at anytime. Other teams also tried to pressure him, a mistake, because ball handling and passing are his strengths. Penetrating, shooting, and defense are weaknesses.
This year’s a different story. Aside from Buckets, we struggle to score in the half-court. Lewis doesn’t have the luxury of running set plays and distributing the ball. We actually need someone to create, find the gaps in a zone, or breakdown man defenders. HE CANNOT DO IT against your typical ACC guard. Not yet at least. Wish the kid all the luck and success in the world, and I hope it’s for two more years in red and white, but his high school accolades and AAU time was much overblown. Having bumped into him at the grocery store, he’s very, very, small, and isn’t particularly quick or fast. Without a great jumpshot to keep defenders honest, people have figured out you can just back off him, and he’s not going to beat you off the dribble.
Rarely do I disagree with the Dog, but you can damn well teach man-to-man defense. There are basic fundamentals at work that are missing among many D-1 players these days. The quality of instruction at the youth level and in a lot of the AAU circuits is just piss poor. Everything from guarding stance, footwork, not running and jumping at jump shooters, going under screens, stopping the ball, help-side defense, rotation, defending screens…these things can damn well be taught. Cut the video off. Drill, drill, drill. And it isn’t a Herculean task to expect better man-to-man than what we’ve seen given the quality of athlete on the floor. The run we went on during the second half of the ACC and tournaments in Gottfried’s first year was largely due to major improvement on the defensive end. Call it balls, call it desire, call it what you want, but that bunch improved and got after it. They weren’t great but they played decent man-to-man coming down the stretch. Nobody’s asking for a defensive juggernaut, just some solid play, something that resembles consistent effort on that end. Teams tend to take on the personalities of their coaches. Lot of finesse, not a lot of grit.
This bunch shows flashes of really good man-to-man but no consistency at all. And transition defense is as bad as the Lowe years. Maybe worse if that’s possible. This is what, I think, Choppack and a few others, including myself, point to as Gott’s track record. Either it isn’t being taught, demanded, there’s not the proper motivation or incentive to bust your ass, or he recruits players that don’t know how, and as CD says, can’t be taught. Either way, he gets the blame. The defense is atrocious.
What ticks me off the most is that he doesn’t use substitutions to make points, or teachable moments, at all. Very long leash he has imo..
I roomed with some SEC guys for several years while Gottfried was at Bama’ and watched a good bit of SEC basketball during that time. This is about par for the course for what you can expect from his teams. Rarely will he blow anybody out, so never get excited after a quick surge (see start of today’s game). His teams simply don’t defend well enough to separate themselves from efficient teams, his teams also tend to have sloppy, unforced errors, lapses in focus, and there are questionable substitution patterns. Notice I didn’t criticize the offense. When the ball goes in, which is what he excels at, then it masks some of his defensive weaknesses. Also note that I think he’s an above average coach.
But I laughed when some fairly outspoken folks on here talked about how last year’s lineups had weaknesses, were overrated, didn’t have the parts to play better defense. Once he recruits his own players, develops them, and roots out the knuckle heads, we’ll really get a good idea of how good a coach he is. Cough.
Gottfried tolerates too much crap in my opinion. Same with this team. 18-22 year old kids learn fundamentals and how to play the “right way” by working their rears off in practice, by coaches reinforcing the proper way to play by rewarding players who practice and play the “right way.” When you don’t, you don’t play. Or you get jerked and sit your ass on the pine. Yes, what we saw today is a little about youth, but it’s also a lot about coaching.
Simple. If we can offset the loss of efficiency on the offensive end with much improved defense, which will create better opportunities to score, then maybe we dance. I think we’ll improve our offense in the half court, and I defense may also improve, but I’m not convinced that either will be good enough. Gottfried’s teams don’t have a track record of sound defense. Offense looks to be a challenge for this team.
^I reserved all expectations until I’d watched a few games. If healthy, and if we can consistently improve, the pieces are in place to hover around .500 mark, perhaps exceed that mark in the ACC and punch a tournament ticket.
After a few years watching Gottfried’s teams, I’m still puzzled. This team has a chance to be his best defensive team. It needs to be in order for this team to excel. Unlike past teams, we’re simply not efficient enough on the offensive end to be able to offset poor defense. According to Kenpom, we rank 107 in adjusted defense and 64 in adjusted offense. And the level of competition doesn’t give much room for optimism.
My non-conference assessment. We struggle to shoot the ball outside the paint, and we’re not great defensively, which means we’re in for a rough season unless one, or both, improve significantly, or we began to play a different style that masks our deficiencies.
Warren has a knack for scoring, moves well without the ball, gets to the boards, and scores well in transition, but he’s not going to beat most 3’s in the ACC off the dribble. When the shot clock winds down, he still needs someone to get him a good look.
Barber is a game changer for us but he’s been erratic. He gets into the paint so easily, but he’s not a great finisher yet and he doesn’t find the open man often enough. Lewis benefited last year from playing with a highly efficient offense that rarely saw zones. His inability to beat his man, penetrate a zone, make the 3 consistently, or play defense just makes it hard to get him on the court.
I still think our best lineup is 1 big, doesn’t really matter who (Vandy, Anya, Freeman, Washington) and Warren, Turner, Lee, and Barber. Turner has to play more. I know he takes ill advised shots but he’s still the best option from 3. We’re going to struggle to rebound regardless of who’s in the lineup, so you might as well score the ball.
What the heck does our coaching staff do during practice? Anybody been to one? I recognize we’ve got some freshmen, sophomores, and an inexperienced Aussie out there, but come on. That team all but disappeared for about the final 10, including the coaching staff.
Well said, Bill. Nothing on here agitates me more than the ref bashing. If you watch college basketball, you know wildly inconsistent officiating isn’t peculiar to Wolfpack games or ACC conference play. It’s bad all around.
There’s plenty of criticism to go around after the Mizzou loss. But a few things stand out. 6 for 21 from 3-pt land is just plain awful. Rarely will you see Gottfried’s teams take that many 3’s. Many of those takes, and some of the makes, were terrible shot selections, occasional desperation heaves. We won’t win many when we take that many 3’s. We have to figure out a way to get the ball into the paint. The key is Barber. For the life of me, I cannot stand the de facto benching of a player in he first half because he picks up 2 fouls. The dropoff defensively and offensively is clear when Barber’s not on the court. Even when he doesn’t have a great game, he impacts the game more.
The rebounding coming down the stretch was similarly bad. The freshmen bigs and Vandy did not produce enough.
To me, I can see the case against EA and others being stronger, because they’re profiting (per IRS) by the sale of someone else’s likeness. But a school isn’t profiting directly from that sale. They may facilitate it, but as long as they’re using the benefits from that sale to further their mission, which they are, then they can and should do it. That’s the crux of the argument as I understand it.
^I respect Dr. Yow, but I have a big problem with this line of thinking, both in principle, and in terms of the financial repercussions.
If, and it’s a big if, the amateur status of the athlete is not jeopardized by distribution of these moneys, which is what O’Bannon’s attorneys are trying to argue, and you can come up with a way to equitably distribute moneys to offset the costs of athletics, I’m all for it. But if those payments aren’t divided equally and distributed equally, then I see no way that you can justify them as amateurs, or the member institutions or NCAA as tax exempt institutions.
The O’Bannon lawyers say the lawsuit doesn’t jeopardize amateur status. They claim these payments aren’t income, but compensation for property theft. But I just don’t see how you can make that argument effectively if the IRS says those institutions are tax exempt. It’s the equivalent of me volunteering at the Salvation Army, them using my likeness to solicit for donations, or advertise their services, and me deciding I’d like to sue because the SA somehow benefited from my volunteered time. It doesn’t matter if certain players happen to add some value to the university or if the current arrangement is one-sided. It isn’t a marketplace.
^Of course the NCAA is hypocritical, but if you believe this is really about NCAA athletes getting a share of the pie to distribute among their teammates and other sports programs, I’ve got a pile of poop to sell you. It’s about individual athletes thinking they have individual value beyond what the NCAA and its member institutions provide. I think any good accountant and econonomist can prove otherwise.
Those players entered into a voluntary agreement with the NCAA. The NCAA and it’s member institutions provided them with a platform and training to improve their skills. If they wanted to enter the market, they could’ve. Get a job. Without the NCAA or colleges, the talent for which they’re seeking compensation is largely worthless.
^…lol. I really wish I’d have followed this more. But for the life of me, I don’t understand why EA and the licensing company bailed. I’m sure they have fantastic attorneys. I just don’t get it. On the surface, the case against EA and CLC looked stronger. Will be interesting to see if O’Bannon’s class case against the NCAA gets certified. For one opinion, see http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130619/ncaa-ed-obannon-hearing-primer/index.html. I just don’t see it. There are plenty of comparable organizations who operate like the NCAA, claim tax exempt status, yet earn buttloads of money. Seems to me the plaintiffs have to prove that the NCAA should not be tax exempt, something that the IRS hasn’t seemed fit to do. There’s just no escaping that tax exempt organizations are giving those players a forum to enhance and display their value. The players didn’t have to agree to that arrangement, but they did.
SaccoV, check out http://www.law.illinois.edu/bljournal/post/2010/02/21/Is-the-NCAA-Fulfilling-its-Tax-Exempt-Status.aspx to learn about the NCAA tax exempt status. It’s a bit dated but still a good summary.
And no, the NCAA isn’t settling, only the licensing company and EA Sports.
If the NCAA has to start sharing revenue directly with individual players, or even establishing a trust for individual athletes or groups of athletes, then it’s paying players. If it, or the member school, is paying players, then those payments are taxable. Tuition, etc. It ain’t happening. Is the NCAA a mockery? Yes. But as TJfoose and others have pointed out, the direct benefits these athletes receive is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. I’m all for changes, but paying college athletes is ridiculous.
^BJD95, one of the better ideas I’ve seen to defray tuition costs using said fees.
And I’m guessing, like Wufpacker, EA just wasn’t prepared for an alternative this year. But you can expect those games back, just in a modified form. Any artist has some creative license. Assigning players skill levels, sizes and weights, is arbitrary. Or allow players to build their own teams and assign numbers, etc.
I still say the NCAA and its member institutions will come out smelling like a rose on this one. As long as they are tax exempt organizations, there will be no paying of players.
