MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: MuggsyB on August 22, 2021, 07:11:20 PM
-
I'll keep my goals and opinions to myself on this one because I'll be accused of being irrational but what do you expect from MU Hoops through April 2026? In other words: NCAA appearances? S16's or better? An F4? Championship contenders? Life is short and I will shrink at some point. I feel like we need to have a greater sense of urgency but I'll be happy to read what our experts have to say.
-
I'll keep my goals and opinions to myself on this one because I'll be accused of being irrational but what do you expect from MU Hoops through April 2026? In other words: NCAA appearances? S16's or better? An F4? Championship contenders? Life is short and I will shrink at some point. I feel like we need to have a greater sense of urgency but I'll be happy to read what our experts have to say.
MU plays in a very competitive level conference . My expectation is our program would be consistently in the top 3 of the conference . If we can achieve that level of success over the next 5 years , the tournament success will follow .
-
MU plays in a very competitive level conference . My expectation is our program would be consistently in the top 3 of the conference . If we can achieve that level of success over the next 5 years , the tournament success will follow .
I think we're in the same ballpark. I feel the switch needs to be turned quickly Herman. I'm quite sick of mediocrity but am hopeful Shaka will turn this around.
-
I don’t know an MU fan who isn’t.
-
I think Muggsy may have shattered Heisy's record for most threads started.
-
Five years? 3 NCAA, 1 NIT. At least one trip to a Sweet 16.
Will be some real growing pains these next two seasons but then crap gets real in a hurry.
-
Five years? 3 NCAA, 1 NIT. At least one trip to a Sweet 16.
Will be some real growing pains these next two seasons but then crap gets real in a hurry.
Year 1: Top 40 in defense. Make NIT at least. Top half of Big East. Win the transfer market post-season.
Year 2: Top 40 in offense and defense. Top 3 in Big East. BET semis. Win one game in NCAA's
Year 3: Compete for a BE championship (1 or 2 in regular season or BET). Win 2 in NCAAs. Top hs recruiting class in conference to start reload.
Year 4 and 5: We are off.
Year 6: Replace Shaka.
-
1: Terrible record but you can see the pieces coming together and getting better as the season goes on
2: NIT, maybe sneak into the NCAAs
3: NCAAs, high enough seed that we are expected to win our first game
4: NCAAs, high enough seed that we are expected to make the Sweet 16
5: Step back from year 4 but still make the NCAAs
-
Make the NCAA tournament 3 years and hopefully make a little run in one of those appearances. I think this next year will be fun to see a new product but results that aren’t anything special. Maybe around .500 or a little above? Guard play is going to be a big question mark.
-
Growth and foundation work first year.
Second year team bubble watch.
Third through 5th solidly in.
With one caveat. Player movement is very fluid and we have no idea who will be on the team in two years.
-
1: Terrible record but you can see the pieces coming together and getting better as the season goes on
2: NIT, maybe sneak into the NCAAs
3: NCAAs, high enough seed that we are expected to win our first game
4: NCAAs, high enough seed that we are expected to make the Sweet 16
5: Step back from year 4 but still make the NCAAs
This is pretty low-barrish, no? It's only slightly better than what the previous coach did, and it will lead to calls for Shaka-Wojo-Dukiet-Raymonds-Hickey to be fired by Year 5 (if not earlier).
I'm gonna be a tiny bit more optimistic:
2 national titles, 4 FFs, and one off year where we lose in the Sweet 16.
-
This is pretty low-barrish, no? It's only slightly better than what the previous coach did, and it will lead to calls for Shaka-Wojo-Dukiet-Raymonds-Hickey to be fired by Year 5 (if not earlier).
No, it's significantly better than what Wojo did in his first five years.
-
National title all 5 years. Anything less is mediocrity
-
National title all 5 years. Anything less is mediocrity failure
FIFY
-
FIFY
Thanks. Truthfully, success in 5 years should include a Big East title and one deep run in March. The tournament is a crapshoot but a Big East title barring injuries is a pretty bare minimum goal
-
nm
-
Thanks. Truthfully, success in 5 years should include a Big East title and one deep run in March. The tournament is a crapshoot but a Big East title barring injuries is a pretty bare minimum goal
I mean I suppose a conference title should be the goal every year, but Marquette has a total of 3 conference championships in the program's history. And they currently play in the same conference as what you could argue has been the best college basketball program of the past decade.
-
I mean I suppose a conference title should be the goal every year, but Marquette has a total of 3 conference championships in the program's history. And they currently play in the same conference as what you could argue has been the best college basketball program of the past decade.
Yeah? No disrespect, but this isn’t the old Big East. Time to step up
-
Yeah? No disrespect, but this isn’t the old Big East. Time to step up
We spent a total of 7 years in the old Big East. Again, 3 total conference titles in program history.
-
Fire Shaka, we can't go on like this. Zero NCAA appearances. Cannot get out of the bottom half of the Big East. I thought Wojo was bad, but 5 more years of this I'm done.
I like 5 year plans.
-
I mean I suppose a conference title should be the goal every year, but Marquette has a total of 3 conference championships in the program's history.
What does this even mean? They were independent for over 2/3rds of the 'history'
-
What does this even mean? They were independent for over 2/3rds of the 'history'
It means they have 3 conference titles in the history of their program. Making a conference title in the next 5 years a “bare minimum” seems like setting yourself up to fail. Especially when Nova is at the level it is.
-
What does this even mean? They were independent for over 2/3rds of the 'history'
They have been a member of a conference for 33 seasons. Three conference regular season titles and one conference tournament championship. That's pretty anemic.
They have been to more sweet 16s (5) in the same timeframe.
-
It means they have 3 conference titles in the history of their program. Making a conference title in the next 5 years a “bare minimum” seems like setting yourself up to fail. Especially when Nova is at the level it is.
I worded that poorly. I wouldn’t call it a failure but a disappointment
-
I think the program will win and will a lot over the next 3 years, but obviously the approach needs to change.
The offense needs to be more than a)setting high ball screens for our superstar and allowing him to go 1 on 3 every possession or b) firing up 25 foot off balance jumpers as the shot clock expires.
And probably more important guys need to play defense correctly-----keeping their backs straight; moving their feet; balance and positioning, etc.
Wojo seemed to teach, or favor the Linda Ronstadt defense, and you won't beat anyone that way.
-
No, it's significantly better than what Wojo did in his first five years.
Basically, the timeline you laid out is either one year earlier than what Wojo did or the results were one tick better.
1: Terrible record but you can see the pieces coming together and getting better as the season goes on
Wojo Year 1: Terrible record but some signs of life with Luke coming in and then a heralded recruiting class being signed. Similar to your vision of progress under Shaka.
2: NIT, maybe sneak into the NCAAs
Wojo Year 2: Ellenson-led team was on the bubble most of the season but missed the postseason due to a couple of very bad losses. Not quite equal to your vision for progress under Shaka.
3: NCAAs, high enough seed that we are expected to win our first game
Wojo Year 3: Beat the nation's No. 1 team en route to making the NCAAs. No. 10 seed indicated we weren't "expected" to win. Not quite equal to your vision for progress under Shaka.
4: NCAAs, high enough seed that we are expected to make the Sweet 16
Wojo Year 4: Step back from Year 4; won a couple NIT games. Nowhere near as good as your vision for progress under Shaka.
5: Step back from year 4 but still make the NCAAs
Wojo Year 5: Ranked most of the season, got into the top-10, in the running for 2/3 seed until late, supposedly-letter-driven fade; No. 5 seed but embarrassed in the tourney. At least slightly better than your vision for progress under Shaka.
Having taken a deeper look, I will concede that your vision of how we'll do under Shaka is somewhat better than "slightly better." And if Shaka actually wins some NCAAT games and gets us to a S16, I would absolutely go to "significantly better."
But you apparently think it's too much to ask Shaka to deliver postseason success -- I guess because of the chicos-memorial crapshoot factor -- and without such success, I personally don't see it as "significantly better."
And if in Year 5, Shaka's team actually underperforms Wojo's fifth season, it will not be easy to avoid being at least a little disappointed.
-
And if in Year 5, Shaka's team actually underperforms Wojo's fifth season, it will not be easy to avoid being at least a little disappointed.
Trying to compare Shaka and Wojo on a year to year basis will not be a fruitful exercise. Teams develop over cycles and Wojo and Shaka started at different points in their cycles. The way the roster is currently constructed, Shaka is likely to have a down year in year 5 as he currently has 9 players who will be graduating after year 4. Now, there is no way all 9 make it to that point, but I'd estimate that he will likely have 4 or 5 graduating after year 4 and like most programs will take a step back as a result. Wojo faced something similar after year 3 which is why he took a step back in year 4.
Also, after year 5, Wojo was getting extended and rightfully so. So doing better than Wojo in the first 5 years means Shaka is doing very well. But I think the difference between Shaka and Wojo is that Shaka won't start a nosedive in the middle of Year 6.
-
Trying to compare Shaka and Wojo on a year to year basis will not be a fruitful exercise. Teams develop over cycles and Wojo and Shaka started at different points in their cycles. The way the roster is currently constructed, Shaka is likely to have a down year in year 5 as he currently has 9 players who will be graduating after year 4. Now, there is no way all 9 make it to that point, but I'd estimate that he will likely have 4 or 5 graduating after year 4 and like most programs will take a step back as a result. Wojo faced something similar after year 3 which is why he took a step back in year 4.
Also, after year 5, Wojo was getting extended and rightfully so. So doing better than Wojo in the first 5 years means Shaka is doing very well. But I think the difference between Shaka and Wojo is that Shaka won't start a nosedive in the middle of Year 6.
Reasonable take, TAMU. Thanks.
While "better than Wojo" still seems a low bar to me, I hope you're right with your last sentence.
We'll only have to wait 'til 2027 to see ... by which time Scoop will have gone through a few cycles itself!!!
-
First off, I suspect Shaka knows what he has for next year but most of us don't. We could be really good or we could be, well, Wojoish.
As for the five year plan, I expect we'll be in the NCAA every year and competitive for a national championship. That's why we play the game -- TO WIN. Strategic plans set vision and anything short of a Natty for a goal means we hired the wrong guy.
Maybe it is my age and having seen what we did way back when, but there's no excuse for mediocrity. If we wanted that, we should have saved our money and kept Wojo. We're better than that.
-
First off, I suspect Shaka knows what he has for next year but most of us don't. We could be really good or we could be, well, Wojoish.
As for the five year plan, I expect we'll be in the NCAA every year and competitive for a national championship. That's why we play the game -- TO WIN. Strategic plans set vision and anything short of a Natty for a goal means we hired the wrong guy.
Maybe it is my age and having seen what we did way back when, but there's no excuse for mediocrity. If we wanted that, we should have saved our money and kept Wojo. We're better than that.
u honestly expect to compete for a title this yr lol
-
u honestly expect to compete for a title this yr lol
I expect that we will compete, put 110% on the floor every time we play and yes, compete for a title.
Do I expect us to plan for that ..of course. Do I expect we will come up short ... I hope not but believe we probably will.
Again, as I said in the beginning, I really don't know what we have and don't have with this team.
-
Reasonable take, TAMU. Thanks.
While "better than Wojo" still seems a low bar to me, I hope you're right with your last sentence.
We'll only have to wait 'til 2027 to see ... by which time Scoop will have gone through a few cycles itself!!!
Stop creeping me out, I'll be 80.
-
Year 1: It is what it is.
Year 2: Little better than Year 1.
Year 3: A couple of upsets. Maybe hope.
Year 4: Decent team. Makes NCAA. 1st round exit.
Year 5: Decent team. Makes NCAA. 2nd round exit.
-
Year 1: It is what it is.
Year 2: Little better than Year 1.
Year 3: A couple of upsets. Maybe hope.
Year 4: Decent team. Makes NCAA. 1st round exit.
Year 5: Decent team. Makes NCAA. 2nd round exit.
I think the timeline is faster than that:
Year 1: Struggles - no postseason
Year 2: Fringe NCAA bid, likely NIT
Year 3: Solid NCAA bid in the 9-11 range, likely first round exit.
Year 4: Ranked much of the year. Solid NCAA bid in the 5-7 range, potential S16
Year 5: Ranked all year. NCAA bid in the 3-4 range with S16 expected
-
I think the timeline is faster than that:
Year 1: Struggles - no postseason
Year 2: Fringe NCAA bid, likely NIT
Year 3: Solid NCAA bid in the 9-11 range, likely first round exit.
Year 4: Ranked much of the year. Solid NCAA bid in the 5-7 range, potential S16
Year 5: Ranked all year. NCAA bid in the 3-4 range with S16 expected
I don't think progress will be this linear. We're currently slotted to graduate 9 players after year 4. While all 9 will not make it that far, it is still likely that we are graduating 3 or more key players and will likely take a step back the following year.
-
I don't think progress will be this linear.
Forget linear progress. I want geometric progression!
-
Forget linear progress. I want geometric progression!
I have moved it to Trig level
-
I have moved it to Trig level
Differential equations is were I'm at.
-
Some observations:
1. It appears that everyone assumes year 1 is going to be a dumpster fire. I'll ask those people if they think Morsell and Kurath threw away their COVID year opportunity as they could have joined a program that at least had a chance at going to the tournament. Also, did Shaka waste those scholarships, as he could have had two more spins on the "find-an-under-the-radar-player" wheel to find players that would help win in the future, rather than on two transfers who they don't believe will help win this year, and won't be available in future years.
2. There seems to be little consideration as to the quality of the rest of the league as to where we might place. Villanova has had a lock on the championship for the last seven years, and it's because they have great coaching and great recruiting. UConn has stepped in and demonstrated great coaching in their first year in the league, and based on the last two classes is out-recruiting the rest of the conference--if they maintain this recruiting and nobody else steps up, I assume that over the next five years, UConn and Villanova are likely to finish 1-2 in the league. The comments that we should regularly finish in the top three or compete for championships doesn't fit with the current reality of recruiting and coaching.
3. I think MU realistically belongs in the next tier (Xavier, Creighton, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Marquette) which means a 3rd place finish is our ceiling and 7th place is our floor. Given the similarity of the programs in terms of coaching and recruiting, we could fall anywhere in this range in any given year, and our ultimate place is going to be more random than annual progression. Good news is that most years, 3 or 4 of these teams have a very good chance at making the tournament, and sometimes all five will make it.
4. If that's Shaka's strategy is to find under-the-radar players who didn't get rated, or looking for hard-working players who fit his system., that makes him no different than, say, Mike Anderson, who found and developed Posh Alexander and Julian Champagne or Kevin Willard's with Sandro Mamukelashvili and Myles Powell. And for all the success Anderson had with Alexander and Champagne, it didn't put St. Johns ahead of UConn or Villanova.
5. I also see lots of assumptions that it takes several years for those under-the-radar players to be successful. To that, I cite Posh Alexander (Fr) and Julian Champaigne (Soph) leading St. John's to 4th place in the Big East. I believe if a player is underanked or below-the-radar, they're going to emerge in year one. To that end, I think Justin Lewis has already emerged as a future star for us, and if one of Stevie Mitchell, Oso, Emarion Ellis, David Joplin, Tyler Kolek or Kam Jones can emerge for us this year as Alexander did for st. Johns's last year, we're definitely in that second group as early as this season, which puts us in the mix for an NCAA bid.
6. I don't see Butler, Providence or DePaul having either the combination of recruiting or coaching to move about the bottom tier over the next five years. I'm torn on whether Georgetown belongs in this group based on some promising recruiting and their unlikely conference championship and NCAA bid last year. But ultimately think they've had too much roster turnover and inconsistency to establish themselves as a consistent middle-of-the-pack performer.
Net of all this: I'll be disappointed with any finish below 7th, and if we don't finish at least 3rd once over the next five years. As far as NCAA success, I'd be disappointed with any fewer than 3 trips, and with any losses to lower seeds.
-
Differential equations is were I'm at.
It is an integral process.
-
1. It appears that everyone assumes year 1 is going to be a dumpster fire. I'll ask those people if they think Morsell and Kurath threw away their COVID year opportunity as they could have joined a program that at least had a chance at going to the tournament. Also, did Shaka waste those scholarships, as he could have had two more spins on the "find-an-under-the-radar-player" wheel to find players that would help win in the future, rather than on two transfers who they don't believe will help win this year, and won't be available in future years.
No, Shaka didn't waste scholarships. Both Morsell and Kuath play defense at the level that Shaka expects and having them to model that for the younger players will reap benefits long beyond their one year in Milwauke. Also no, Morsell and Kuath didn't waste their COVID year opportunity. Not playing on a tournament team doesn't mean that there is no value in the experience.
2. There seems to be little consideration as to the quality of the rest of the league as to where we might place. Villanova has had a lock on the championship for the last seven years, and it's because they have great coaching and great recruiting. UConn has stepped in and demonstrated great coaching in their first year in the league, and based on the last two classes is out-recruiting the rest of the conference--if they maintain this recruiting and nobody else steps up, I assume that over the next five years, UConn and Villanova are likely to finish 1-2 in the league. The comments that we should regularly finish in the top three or compete for championships doesn't fit with the current reality of recruiting and coaching.
I don't know about UConn always finishing in 2nd but otherwise agree. Success is most accurately measured by how your team performs, not by what place they finish in the conference.
5. I also see lots of assumptions that it takes several years for those under-the-radar players to be successful. To that, I cite Posh Alexander (Fr) and Julian Champaigne (Soph) leading St. John's to 4th place in the Big East.
What is the relevance of (tied for) 4th place in the Big East? A more accurate observation is that Posh Alexander (Fr) and Julian Champaigne (Soph) led St. John's to....a season where they missed the NIT. Despite them being stars, they couldn't carry their team to the postseason, not even the NIT. They as players will be better this season than they were last season (whether or not their team as whole will be, we will have to see. Lots of turnover in Queens this offseason). College players typically get better every year. This is a indisputable fact.
-
It is an integral process.
Trust the process
-
Trust Respect the process
FIFY.
The Sixers suck.
-
FIFY.
The Sixers suck.
LOL
-
Some observations:
1. It appears that everyone assumes year 1 is going to be a dumpster fire. I'll ask those people if they think Morsell and Kurath threw away their COVID year opportunity as they could have joined a program that at least had a chance at going to the tournament. Also, did Shaka waste those scholarships, as he could have had two more spins on the "find-an-under-the-radar-player" wheel to find players that would help win in the future, rather than on two transfers who they don't believe will help win this year, and won't be available in future years.
2. There seems to be little consideration as to the quality of the rest of the league as to where we might place. Villanova has had a lock on the championship for the last seven years, and it's because they have great coaching and great recruiting. UConn has stepped in and demonstrated great coaching in their first year in the league, and based on the last two classes is out-recruiting the rest of the conference--if they maintain this recruiting and nobody else steps up, I assume that over the next five years, UConn and Villanova are likely to finish 1-2 in the league. The comments that we should regularly finish in the top three or compete for championships doesn't fit with the current reality of recruiting and coaching.
3. I think MU realistically belongs in the next tier (Xavier, Creighton, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Marquette) which means a 3rd place finish is our ceiling and 7th place is our floor. Given the similarity of the programs in terms of coaching and recruiting, we could fall anywhere in this range in any given year, and our ultimate place is going to be more random than annual progression. Good news is that most years, 3 or 4 of these teams have a very good chance at making the tournament, and sometimes all five will make it.
4. If that's Shaka's strategy is to find under-the-radar players who didn't get rated, or looking for hard-working players who fit his system., that makes him no different than, say, Mike Anderson, who found and developed Posh Alexander and Julian Champagne or Kevin Willard's with Sandro Mamukelashvili and Myles Powell. And for all the success Anderson had with Alexander and Champagne, it didn't put St. Johns ahead of UConn or Villanova.
5. I also see lots of assumptions that it takes several years for those under-the-radar players to be successful. To that, I cite Posh Alexander (Fr) and Julian Champaigne (Soph) leading St. John's to 4th place in the Big East. I believe if a player is underanked or below-the-radar, they're going to emerge in year one. To that end, I think Justin Lewis has already emerged as a future star for us, and if one of Stevie Mitchell, Oso, Emarion Ellis, David Joplin, Tyler Kolek or Kam Jones can emerge for us this year as Alexander did for st. Johns's last year, we're definitely in that second group as early as this season, which puts us in the mix for an NCAA bid.
6. I don't see Butler, Providence or DePaul having either the combination of recruiting or coaching to move about the bottom tier over the next five years. I'm torn on whether Georgetown belongs in this group based on some promising recruiting and their unlikely conference championship and NCAA bid last year. But ultimately think they've had too much roster turnover and inconsistency to establish themselves as a consistent middle-of-the-pack performer.
Net of all this: I'll be disappointed with any finish below 7th, and if we don't finish at least 3rd once over the next five years. As far as NCAA success, I'd be disappointed with any fewer than 3 trips, and with any losses to lower seeds.
You have eloquently stated what is my case for MU. The rest of the league is not much different than us and we have enough talent to compete for the 3rd spot this year . With the youth we have we should be able to compete for that 3rd spot the next couple years .
-
we have enough talent to compete for the 3rd spot this year
How do you know?
Not trying to be a wise-arse. We know VERY little about the talent on this year's team. There certainly is very little proven high-major talent, which of course doesn't mean we lack talent.
I do hope you're right. Actually ... the optimist in me hopes you're wrong in that we actually can compete for the top spot in the BEast, even though the realist in me knows how unlikely that is.
-
How do you know?
Not trying to be a wise-arse. We know VERY little about the talent on this year's team. There certainly is very little proven high-major talent, which of course doesn't mean we lack talent.
I do hope you're right. Actually ... the optimist in me hopes you're wrong in that we actually can compete for the top spot in the BEast, even though the realist in me knows how unlikely that is.
Geometric progression, my friend. Geometric progression!
-
Geometric progression, my friend. Geometric progression!
You sound like Capt. Queeg.
-
How do you know?
Not trying to be a wise-arse. We know VERY little about the talent on this year's team. There certainly is very little proven high-major talent, which of course doesn't mean we lack talent.
I do hope you're right. Actually ... the optimist in me hopes you're wrong in that we actually can compete for the top spot in the BEast, even though the realist in me knows how unlikely that is.
Because he died and resurrected
-
Year 1: win
Year 2: win more
Year 3: keep on winning
Year 4: still lots of winning
Year 5: still not tired of winning
-
Year 1: win
Year 2: win more
Year 3: keep on winning
Year 4: still lots of winning
Year 5: still not tired of winning
How many years until we win every day?
-
Year 1: Better than Wojo
Year 2: Better than KO
Year 3: Better than Crean
Year 4: Better than Al
Year 5: Shaka retires having won his last game. Takes a leadership position in the Jordan brand. Dabbles with commentating.
-
MU Alum Marcus Lemonis getting in on the action:
https://twitter.com/marcuslemonis/status/1435393819302846467
-
MU Alum Marcus Lemonis getting in on the action:
https://twitter.com/marcuslemonis/status/1435393819302846467
Free T-shirt is nice, but it would be nicer to see MU players featured as the "Official College Basketball Backcourt of Camping World" or "Gander Outdoor's CBB Shooting Specialists."
-
How many years until we win every day?
Maybe you put your finger on the problem. Should have been "win every GAME day".
We were just too focused on winning the off days.
-
I think our 5 year plan is the same plan from the last 5 years. Mediocrity with some success here and there.
I don't think the Shaka tenure has started off great. I hope I am wrong on this but with all the turnover everywhere, I expected a more blended roster with a higher talent level that would allow us to compete for a NCAA tourny bid this year.
In this day and age, you need to win day 1. Heads get turned way too easily so trying to build for 2, 3 years down the line with a young group of players is hard to do. My guess is easily a 50% current roster shake out by end of year 2 and that 50% doesn't include the 2 grad players. Its a tough gig but you need to win and win right away.
-
I think our 5 year plan is the same plan from the last 5 years. Mediocrity with some success here and there.
I don't think the Shaka tenure has started off great. I hope I am wrong on this but with all the turnover everywhere, I expected a more blended roster with a higher talent level that would allow us to compete for a NCAA tourny bid this year.
In this day and age, you need to win day 1. Heads get turned way too easily so trying to build for 2, 3 years down the line with a young group of players is hard to do. My guess is easily a 50% current roster shake out by end of year 2 and that 50% doesn't include the 2 grad players. Its a tough gig but you need to win and win right away.
Several Scoopers think we will do just that. I hope they're right!
-
I think our 5 year plan is the same plan from the last 5 years. Mediocrity with some success here and there.
I don't think the Shaka tenure has started off great. I hope I am wrong on this but with all the turnover everywhere, I expected a more blended roster with a higher talent level that would allow us to compete for a NCAA tourny bid this year.
In this day and age, you need to win day 1. Heads get turned way too easily so trying to build for 2, 3 years down the line with a young group of players is hard to do. My guess is easily a 50% current roster shake out by end of year 2 and that 50% doesn't include the 2 grad players. Its a tough gig but you need to win and win right away.
The question comes down to how you define mediocrity.
I don't think we've recruited at a high enough level to break into the top tier in the Big East, but I think we have recruited well enough to rise to the top of the 2nd tier--and that includes this coming season. I think what Shaka has brought in for this year compares favorably to the current rosters of DePaul, Butler, Providence, Seton Hall, St. Johns, and Georgetown, and falls short of Villanova, UConn, Xavier & Creighton.
Is 4th or 5th in the Big East mediocre? Most years, this type of performance would make the NCAA tournament--maybe on the wrong side of the bubble in some years.
The next question is what would it take to break into that top tier. I think a lot of people are pinning their hopes on Shaka finding "under-the-radar" players who will develop over time to become stars and compete for the Big East title.
Which may happen--but for that strategy to work requires four things: a) Jay Wright suddenly lose his coaching mojo, b) the roster of highly ranked recruits Hurley is building consistently underperforms their ranking, c) McDermott can't coach high-rated talent now that he has some, and d) the upgrade in Xavier's talent over the last year or two doesn't rise to the level needed to overcome the fact they're coached by Travis Steele.
All said, I think we're solid middle-of-the-pack team going forward.
-
Shaka's losses the last 6 years.
2021 8 Shorten season with 3 players drafted in 2021 NBA draft.
2020 12
2019 16
2018 15
2017 22
2016 13
I expect a lot of complaining on MUscoop this year.
-
Shaka's losses the last 6 years.
2021 8 Shorten season with 3 players drafted in 2021 NBA draft.
2020 12
2019 16
2018 15
2017 22
2016 13
I expect a lot of complaining on MUscoop this year.
But he wasn't able to establish the culture like he will here.
-
I expect a lot of complaining on Scoop every year. Complained about Crean, complained about Buzz, complained about Wojo. Why should Coach Smart be any different?
-
I expect a lot of complaining on Scoop every year. Complained about Crean, complained about Buzz, complained about Wojo. Why should Coach Smart be any different?
#ComplainEveryDay
-
#ComplainEveryDay
Our NCAA chances begun and ended with the TBT scrimmage loss.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/57/cf/ff/57cfffad6a1d1d19527560b46a4573ef.jpg)
-
Crean sucks
-
Our NCAA chances begun and ended with the TBT scrimmage loss.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/57/cf/ff/57cfffad6a1d1d19527560b46a4573ef.jpg)
Cost us at least 3 seeds
-
Cost us at least 3 seeds
Losing a home game by 30 = no bueno. Especially against a non Tourney team. Quad 3 loss.
-
The question comes down to how you define mediocrity.
I don't think we've recruited at a high enough level to break into the top tier in the Big East, but I think we have recruited well enough to rise to the top of the 2nd tier--and that includes this coming season. I think what Shaka has brought in for this year compares favorably to the current rosters of DePaul, Butler, Providence, Seton Hall, St. Johns, and Georgetown, and falls short of Villanova, UConn, Xavier & Creighton.
Is 4th or 5th in the Big East mediocre? Most years, this type of performance would make the NCAA tournament--maybe on the wrong side of the bubble in some years.
The next question is what would it take to break into that top tier. I think a lot of people are pinning their hopes on Shaka finding "under-the-radar" players who will develop over time to become stars and compete for the Big East title.
Which may happen--but for that strategy to work requires four things: a) Jay Wright suddenly lose his coaching mojo, b) the roster of highly ranked recruits Hurley is building consistently underperforms their ranking, c) McDermott can't coach high-rated talent now that he has some, and d) the upgrade in Xavier's talent over the last year or two doesn't rise to the level needed to overcome the fact they're coached by Travis Steele.
All said, I think we're solid middle-of-the-pack team going forward.
I do not think there is enough seasoned talent to win this year. I would really like this team, if all the freshmen (including the 2nd year freshmen) stayed four years. However, with free transferring now allowed, they are not going to stay together.
-
I do not think there is enough seasoned talent to win this year. I would really like this team, if all the freshmen (including the 2nd year freshmen) stayed four years. However, with free transferring now allowed, they are not going to stay together.
This will be a good test of the "Shaka, the pied piper" narrative many have espoused.
More than ever, coaches will have to "re-recruit" their own players every year. And ultimately, for many programs -- especially those not in the blueblood and near-blueblood realm -- their success or failure very well could depend on their coaches' success or failure at re-recruiting their own players.
-
I think most of the Shaka excitement is about having an actual system and knowing what to expect game in, game out. Once that’s established the recruiting will take care of itself
I fully expect to surprise people this year and make the tournament. In the words of Robert Hunter “this train’s got to run today” and once we get going we ain’t stopping
-
I think most of the Shaka excitement is about having an actual system and knowing what to expect game in, game out. Once that’s established the recruiting will take care of itself
I fully expect to surprise people this year and make the tournament. In the words of Robert Hunter “this train’s got to run today” and once we get going we ain’t stopping
Love the optimism. Hope you're right!
-
I think most of the Shaka excitement is about having an actual system and knowing what to expect game in, game out. Once that’s established the recruiting will take care of itself
I fully expect to surprise people this year and make the tournament. In the words of Robert Hunter “this train’s got to run today” and once we get going we ain’t stopping
Agree with the first paragraph. While I hope your optimism in your second paragraph is validated, I think too many "ifs" have to play out in our favor. IF Justin has a breakout year, Greg has a great year, Kolek makes the transition to the BE with stats similar to his last season and at least one of our freshman surprises us with hot shooting, sure- we look really good. More likely Shaka will have to give enough PT to the freshman to see what they can do and that alone may result in a disappointing season. Leave them on the bench too often and long to chalk up more W's and the best ones will transfer.
While this thread is about a 5 year plan, I think in terms of a two year plan that is roughly analogous to a two act play. The first act/season, the conflicts and problems are laid out. They are resolved in the second act in a two act play but this is where the analogy becomes shaky. At the end of season two, we will have a fairly good idea of where we stand in the BE and nationally but there will still be unanswered questions.
-
Agree with the first paragraph. While I hope your optimism in your second paragraph is validated, I think too many "ifs" have to play out in our favor. IF Justin has a breakout year, Greg has a great year, Kolek makes the transition to the BE with stats similar to his last season and at least one of our freshman surprises us with hot shooting, sure- we look really good. More likely Shaka will have to give enough PT to the freshman to see what they can do and that alone may result in a disappointing season. Leave them on the bench too often and long to chalk up more W's and the best ones will transfer.
While this thread is about a 5 year plan, I think in terms of a two year plan that is roughly analogous to a two act play. The first act/season, the conflicts and problems are laid out. They are resolved in the second act in a two act play but this is where the analogy becomes shaky. At the end of season two, we will have a fairly good idea of where we stand in the BE and nationally but there will still be unanswered questions.
Very well-reasoned post.
-
Very well-reasoned post.
Except why would the best ones transfer? They would probably be playing? The latest bloomers would potentially transfer before being fully developed, which is unfortunate, but it would be because they weren't yet able to beat out others for playing time.
-
Except why would the best ones transfer? They would probably be playing? The latest bloomers would potentially transfer before being fully developed, which is unfortunate, but it would be because they weren't yet able to beat out others for playing time.
I did not write "the best ones (will) transfer". My point was that Shaka is almost certainly going to give a fair amount of PT to the freshmen even though that will likely increase the possibility of losing some games in which minimizing their PT might result in a W. I think that by bringing in 5 freshmen Shaka is "saying" (de facto) that's part of his long range plan. I also think that he may persuade one of them to redshirt. Five freshmen is a tall order.
-
Except why would the best ones transfer? They would probably be playing? The latest bloomers would potentially transfer before being fully developed, which is unfortunate, but it would be because they weren't yet able to beat out others for playing time.
Some might go to a blue blood that has a chance for a run to a NC. Not having to seat a year gives the transfer knowledge of the team he will be playing with instead of waiting two years not knowing who is coming and who is leaving.
-
I think most of the Shaka excitement is about having an actual system and knowing what to expect game in, game out. Once that’s established the recruiting will take care of itself
I fully expect to surprise people this year and make the tournament. In the words of Robert Hunter “this train’s got to run today” and once we get going we ain’t stopping
Better temper your excitement, I asked somebody in the know, last year he stated they had 3 top college players, this year maybe 1, Justin Lewis. Athletic players
who need to work on there skills as they are young. They will improve during the year, but getting to the dance, not sure about that.
-
Better temper your excitement, I asked somebody in the know, last year he stated they had 3 top college players, this year maybe 1, Justin Lewis. Athletic players
who need to work on there skills as they are young. They will improve during the year, but getting to the dance, not sure about that.
Who the heck was our third “top college player” last year?
-
Who the heck was our third “top college player” last year?
Who was the 2nd and 3rd?
-
I did not write "the best ones (will) transfer". My point was that Shaka is almost certainly going to give a fair amount of PT to the freshmen even though that will likely increase the possibility of losing some games in which minimizing their PT might result in a W. I think that by bringing in 5 freshmen Shaka is "saying" (de facto) that's part of his long range plan. I also think that he may persuade one of them to redshirt. Five freshmen is a tall order.
I don't think it's in the DNA of any college coach to take an L in a winnable game simply to get different players more experience. If there's a chance to win and it requires playing Morsell, Kur, and Greg 30 mpg each, Shaka will play them 30 mpg each.
The only two situations I see benching the upperclassmen in lieu of a poorer performing freshman are a) in an individual game where the outcome is no longer in doubt--once you're down 20+ you'll give the frosh more playing time. Or b) the entire season is dumpster fire--say you start 1-9 in the conference, you bench the seniors to give the frosh more time.
The fact that Shaka brought in 4 experienced transfers (2 of them graduate seniors) suggests he's not throwing in the towel on the season. Five freshmen makes for a young team, but we finished 4th in the league with 4 frosh in 2006.
-
The best players are going to play. No coach will sacrifice that for the worse ones to get "experience."
-
Who the heck was our third “top college player” last year?
If the conversation occurred preseason, I would guess DJ Carton and Dawson Garcia were two, though it seems unlikely Justin would've been included before he hit the court. Theo or Jamal seem more likely, maybe Koby, but none scream "top college player" to me as of September 2020.
This year, I would similarly argue it's hard to say Justin would be our "top college player" ahead of Morsell considering how unproven Justin is and how much Morsell has accomplished. Morsell might be just an average offensive player, but his truly elite defense would have him ahead of Lewis if I was looking at overall game.
-
The best players are going to play. No coach will sacrifice that for the worse ones to get "experience."
I think some coaches goal is to have the best team at the end of the year, which can mean playing a younger player over a senior at the start of the season. Generally, these coaches already know they are going to make the NCAA tournament. I think Izzo is this way. His teams almost always are good in March.
You cannot do this, if you cannot afford a loss.
-
The disaster-to-be at Duke, Jon Scheyer, having already secured a top-5 recruiting class for 2022, just landed Caleb Foster, perhaps the #1 PG of the 2023 class.
Recruiting is only a part of being a coach (though the biggest part), so maybe Scheyer will be the disaster that most Scoopers seem to think he'll be.
Right now, though, it would be nice to see Shaka land a couple of Scheyer's rejects.
-
The disaster-to-be at Duke, Jon Scheyer, having already secured a top-5 recruiting class for 2022, just landed Caleb Foster, perhaps the #1 PG of the 2023 class.
Recruiting is only a part of being a coach (though the biggest part), so maybe Scheyer will be the disaster that most Scoopers seem to think he'll be.
Right now, though, it would be nice to see Shaka land a couple of Scheyer's rejects.
As long as Nike wants Duke to be a flagship program, they’ll be just fine