Men’s hoops additions

[jg233]

1 hour ago, NewEnglandBull said:

The way I look at, the guys we had were in reality not very good... maybe good for USF but not college basketball in general. Replacing them at this point is more than a risk worth taking. 

Assuming we are gonna add a few more guys, BG doesn't have to hit a home run on all of these guys.  If one of them can turn out really good and two others be solid contributors then we can at least be decent in the AAC.  The AAC is not a P6 conference and there are only a few schools that have P6 level talent.  Gregory is gonna have to coach his a$$ off with all the new pieces though.

[NewEnglandBull]

18 minutes ago, jg233 said:

Assuming we are gonna add a few more guys, BG doesn't have to hit a home run on all of these guys.  If one of them can turn out really good and two others be solid contributors then we can at least be decent in the AAC.  The AAC is not a P6 conference and there are only a few schools that have P6 level talent.  Gregory is gonna have to coach his a$$ off with all the new pieces though.

Agreed

[Dave_Glaser]

5 hours ago, SilverBull said:

Oh, I get it.  So in a radical departure from our prior philosophy you are saying we want to try to score more points next season.

"Ahhhhh.  It's a profit deal"

By change in philosophy, I'm hoping it means we're not running the shot clock down every possession like we have and depending on a slash to the hoop. Instead, we have guys who can make a perimeter shot.

[Dave_Glaser]

3 hours ago, CousinRicky said:

I'm with you.  I just hope we can score 75 points a game. Don't care if we give up 80. Tired of watching the yawners that are MBB.  

And that's what I meant by a change in the offense and recruiting philosophy - maybe at MK's request? - to create a more watchable product. Get guys with some offensive game and teach them how to defend, instead of the other way around.

[Dave_Glaser]

2 hours ago, jg233 said:

Assuming we are gonna add a few more guys, BG doesn't have to hit a home run on all of these guys.  If one of them can turn out really good and two others be solid contributors then we can at least be decent in the AAC.  The AAC is not a P6 conference and there are only a few schools that have P6 level talent.  Gregory is gonna have to coach his a$$ off with all the new pieces though.

For sure he has his work cut out for him with all the new faces. But let's not sell AAC hoops short. We did just have a Final Four team and a team that won the NIT.

[Triple B]

23 minutes ago, Dave_Glaser said:

And that's what I meant by a change in the offense and recruiting philosophy - maybe at MK's request? - to create a more watchable product.

I'd be disappointed in Kelly if that happened and can't believe that it did. His job is to hire head coaches, give them what he can to help them succeed, including the time he deems reasonable. If the coach doesn't meet HIS expectations, you move on.

And a watchable product starts with a winning product. I've never quite understood the thinking that we'd have more fans, even if we're losing, if we were more "watchable". The diehards may kind of enjoy the losing more but I don't see it doing much for the program unless there's winning involved ... and if by "watchable" you meant winning more, forget everything I just said.

[Brad]

3 hours ago, jg233 said:

Assuming we are gonna add a few more guys, BG doesn't have to hit a home run on all of these guys.  If one of them can turn out really good and two others be solid contributors then we can at least be decent in the AAC.  The AAC is not a P6 conference and there are only a few schools that have P6 level talent.  Gregory is gonna have to coach his a$$ off with all the new pieces though.

This is said a lot about basketball.  Problem is, it's easy to shut down one guy.  

I can agree they don't have to be "home runs", but to think (as some do) that a team can be carried by one guy is unrealistic.  The most successful can easily go 7-8 deep made up of multiple guys that can lead in scoring, not one.  

[John Lewis]

55 minutes ago, Triple B said:

And a watchable product starts with a winning product. I've never quite understood the thinking that we'd have more fans, even if we're losing, if we were more "watchable". The diehards may kind of enjoy the losing more but I don't see it doing much for the program unless there's winning involved ... and if by "watchable" you meant winning more, forget everything I just said.

No one seemed to complain during the 2011-2012 season. That team was pretty tough to watch on the offensive end most nights, but we were very pleasing to the eye on the defensive end of the floor.

We won a game against Cincinnati only scoring 46 points.

[jg233]

15 hours ago, Dave_Glaser said:

For sure he has his work cut out for him with all the new faces. But let's not sell AAC hoops short. We did just have a Final Four team and a team that won the NIT.

Yeah, give Houston and Memphis credit but they are the only two teams that bring in high major talent consistently at this point.  Cincy and Wichita St. are question marks right now and fall into the high mid major category with everyone else in the conference. 

[NewEnglandBull]

1 hour ago, jg233 said:

Yeah, give Houston and Memphis credit but they are the only two teams that bring in high major talent consistently at this point.  Cincy and Wichita St. are question marks right now and fall into the high mid major category with everyone else in the conference. 

There is no chance Cincy and WSU stay where they are at. Their culture is too successful and in reality they had just one bad year. Both of those teams will be back and soon. This will always be a three bid conference with an occasional four at times.