3rd Year

UD90 · #1 01-30-2014, 07:56 AM

This won't make anyone feel better, but. ..

Every Flyer coach since Donoher has had a .500 record or worse in there 3rd year.

The irony of it is the in Donoher 3rd year we were NCAA runners up.

Archie has tied Purnell (13-14) with 3rd year wins, trails BG (14-17) and O'Brien (15-15).

Clearly year 3 has always been a challenge.

Conference wins for those years were 5-5, 6-10, 6-10.

I just didn't see this coming.

rollo · #2 01-30-2014, 08:26 AM

Battered Wife Syndrome...

That's what I believe the Flyer Faithful have...and you've all heard the stories. Sally's hubby beats the snot out of her...but she 'loves' him and doesn't press charges. He does it again, but she feels like she deserved it for burning the mac-n-cheese...plus, she loves him and he loves her. But when the beer is spilled he beats her again...and she apologizes for him because he loves her and she loves him...and it continues...forever...or until he kills her.

All the while, people on the outside looking in see how destructive the relationship is and beg Sally to protect herself and get help...but she's 'in love' and keeps going back for more because her hubby 'loves' her, too.

My favorite _avier fan sent me a great note last night about what everyone else sees with UD and it was an eye-opener, not because it was funny but because it was factual and accurate.

And my simple response was 'you're right'.

Odrab14 · #3 01-30-2014, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by UD90

This won't make anyone feel better, but. ..

Every Flyer coach since Donoher has had a .500 record or worse in there 3rd year.

The irony of it is the in Donoher 3rd year we were NCAA runners up.

Archie has tied Purnell (13-14) with 3rd year wins, trails BG (14-17) and O'Brien (15-15).

Clearly year 3 has always been a challenge.

Conference wins for those years were 5-5, 6-10, 6-10.

I just didn't see this coming.

I had this team picked for 19 wins pre season. I would take that today in a heartbeat. I looked up this information to about previous coaches. It aligns with what I have neen saying the whole time. We lost years of classes when BG left. No..BG shouldnt have been here. Both he and UD had gone as far as they could together. But look at our senior and Junior classes Not to mention being behind on recruiting for the sophomores. Smaller programs need sustained classes to put together winners

UACFlyer · #4 01-30-2014, 09:15 AM

....and about BG's tenure, the more I think I may have hit upon something....very weak assistant coaching.

Both BG and AM were very young relatively inexperienced guys, especially AM. A guy like that needs help. What help is AM getting from the cast of inexperienced characters that are his assistants?

Often retired (or "removed") head guys take jobs as assistants because they love the game. Right off I can think of three such guys that have done that. I think that would be very helpful at Dayton.

Archie has a mess on his hands, doesn't know what to do about it,...and there is no one to help him figure it out.

bobber · #5 01-30-2014, 09:28 AM

UAC, I was thinking particularly of SLU. Not only do they have Jim Crews, they also hired Jim Whitesell as an assistant who has a number of years as a DI head coach.

Between those two they must have a lot of experience. Whoops, I guess I said a bad word.

Sorry.

jack72 · #6 01-30-2014, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by UACFlyer

....and about BG's tenure, the more I think I may have hit upon something....very weak assistant coaching.

Both BG and AM were very young relatively inexperienced guys, especially AM. A guy like that needs help. What help is AM getting from the cast of inexperienced characters that are his assistants?

Often retired (or "removed") head guys take jobs as assistants because they love the game. Right off I can think of three such guys that have done that. I think that would be very helpful at Dayton.

Archie has a mess on his hands, doesn't know what to do about it,...and there is no one to help him figure it out.

I have seen it in the business world over the past 20 years (before that I was one of them and too naive to realize it). The young guy gets promoted to VP and he starts surrounding himself with people under 40, while shedding all the people over 50. They all collectively struggle until a senior VP or President intercedes and puts in some experience. Young people and young coaches want young coaches that they feel secure with, but that is exactly what they do not need. Baseball seems to get it with their use of a bench coach. Who is the Flyer's bench coach?

UACFlyer · #7 01-30-2014, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by jack72

I have seen it in the business world over the past 20 years (before that I was one of them and too naive to realize it). The young guy gets promoted to VP and he starts surrounding himself with people under 40, while shedding all the people over 50. They all collectively struggle until a senior VP or President intercedes and puts in some experience. Young people and young coaches want young coaches that they feel secure with, but that is exactly what they do not need. Baseball seems to get it with their use of a bench coach. Who is the Flyer's bench coach?

Another way to ask the same question: If AM gets sick and misses a game, or is ejected, who takes over as coach? Often/usually there is a bench coach or an associate head coach. If knowledgeable Priders that are regulars at the Arena don't know who would take over under such circumstances, we're in trouble. Even if they do know, is the guy sufficiently experienced.

And if the answer to such questions is not satisfying, then the problem is Wabler. Leading the Dayton program should not be amateur hour.

Tony T 71 · #8 01-30-2014, 11:27 AM

Interesting points. Back in the day when I coached High School basketball, I had great assistant coaches. It makes a difference and I think the players respond to this. It was great to go into a timeout and have an assistant, coach the team because they had a great idea or strategy for the moment. They were also in my ear during the game which really helped me in making decisions.Many have posted before that BG and Archie needed that former head coach on the bench for stability. Lord knows there are some good ones out there!

Just sayin...

rollo · #9 01-30-2014, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Tony T 71

Many have posted before that BG and Archie needed that former head coach on the bench for stability. Lord knows there are some good ones out there!

Instead of hiring an experienced head coach to tell Archie what to do, why don't we hire and experienced head coach to tell the team what to do?

Am I on to something here??!!

Columbia Blue · #10 01-30-2014, 11:50 AM

good points ... as sound & experienced as Coach Purnell was, I felt hiring Ron Jirsa as Assoc Head Coach took the program to another level (Tubby Smith Assistant, former Head Coach at Georgia).

wonder how close Jirsa was to getting hired vs BG when OP left? after a mediocre stint as HC at Marshall, Jirsa is back with Tubby. If BG gets pushed out at GT (likely), look for him to rejoin Izzo at MSU ...

http://www.gophersports.com/sports/m...rsa_ron00.html

Beatty Town Coach · #11 01-30-2014, 12:40 PM

Yes Gregory's days at tech are numbered, and they where numbered when he was hired, but unlike Amazing Grace, BG does have "less days" than when he first began. And so too does Miller.

Rollo, you got it, stop with the hiring of young hot-shot assistances who only use Dayton to get their coaching certificates so they can one day go out and get a real job as head coach some where else, all the while wrecking this program; but let's just hire someone with some real experience, or better yet, let's hire some one with a different offensive mentality, and for sure not the younger brother of the guy who helped XU continue a 30 plus year home court winning streak against us.

Throw the current HR model and thought processes out the proverbial door, stop trying to out smart yourself, and get back to the basics. The Men's Basketball Program, for many years now, is being ran like a "massive Social Project".

ud2 · #12 01-30-2014, 01:23 PM

I would give Archie another year and then reevaluate things.

I think people forget about some of the rough years BG and OP had. College basketball is a very competitive sport.

I think the internet and message boards amplify all the angst and anger.

rollo · #13 01-30-2014, 02:01 PM

I have repeatedly read that it's too early to get rid of Archie* because of his contract...

...and I find in hilarious that the single most identified reason to keep him as our head coach is directly tied to his contract and nothing else.

not "the sophomores are going to be awesome in another year..."
not "the chemistry is there, we just need Davis next year..."
not "we're overachieving with the limited talent we have..."
not "he's exceeded most of our expectations and that of the AD..."

No, the only reason being given to justify at least 2 more years of 'UGH!' is his contract.

Which, to me, is the only reason I need to recommend it be terminated.

skip69 · #14 01-30-2014, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by ud2

I would give Archie another year and then reevaluate things.

I think people forget about some of the rough years BG and OP had. College basketball is a very competitive sport.

I think the internet and message boards amplify all the angst and anger.

Sorta agree ud2. BG had more years, but also some good years. We hated the offensive scheme, but defense was very good; hence the decent record. AM's offense was is more enjoyable to watch, but defense is atroceous; hence the record last year (and probably even worse this year). Defense wins games!

I liked BG, but think AM needs another year. But, he needs an experienced ass't HC that can also recruit, much better FT shooting, and much better defense .. otherwise, doomed to failure!

New HC hires then need to be evaluated and changed also. AD should interview new potential assistant hires (seems logical even now)and provide strong input for the HC (depending on experience) and strongly emphasize what has happened in the past. AD's job should also be tied to success of the basketball program (over all others).

Anything that causes change will only occur if fans show their displeasure (not at games as counterproductive), write letters showing displeasure, and then quit showing up (save the money as most games are now on TV)....This is from a long standing season ticket holder. WE ARE BECOMING THE GRAVEYARD OF COACHES (even OP and BG will probably be let go soon.

anthonycharles · #15 01-30-2014, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by Columbia Blue

good points ... as sound & experienced as Coach Purnell was, I felt hiring Ron Jirsa as Assoc Head Coach took the program to another level (Tubby Smith Assistant, former Head Coach at Georgia).

wonder how close Jirsa was to getting hired vs BG when OP left? after a mediocre stint as HC at Marshall, Jirsa is back with Tubby. If BG gets pushed out at GT (likely), look for him to rejoin Izzo at MSU ...

http://www.gophersports.com/sports/m...rsa_ron00.html

Jirsa was brought in because after the 98-99 season when the Flyers went backwards and finished 11-17, OP's boss urged (nudged, ordered, not sure how much of demand it was, but I do know that TK pushed for it) him to hire an experienced assistant coach, worried the program was going backwards and OP's assistants didn't have enough experience. Jirsa joined as OP's top assistant, knocking all the other assistants down a spot. It's no coincidence the program took off after the hiring of Jirsa. He was responsible for bringing Ramad Marshall in. Had OP won a tourney game or two and recruited better in his final seasons, Jirsa would've had a good shot at the head coaching position. I think UD made the right call not hiring him.

I think BG will go the Paul Hewitt route. Lose his job at Tech and get hired by a smaller program.

Sea Bass · #16 01-30-2014, 10:17 PM

Interesting to see the coaching carousel. I would not be shocked if BG and Grant move on after this year. Things get crazier every year. I do miss the toughness of BGs team. IMO it is the main thing lacking from this current team. BG had 4 years of Huels (no post game) and managed to win a lot of basketball games. He had a bunch of tough guys (Warren, Wright, Johnson & Johnson, Huelsman, etc).

Sea Bass · #17 01-30-2014, 10:23 PM

The issue the AD has to deal with is this: Are things likely to get better in the next two years? Why should it? Wabler needs to believe that Archie is the right man for the job. If he is not sure then what would he expect to see next year? Is there a reason to think it will happen?

Now is the time to ask the hard questions. Archie started with a two year hole blown in the class structure due to the departure of BG. I think everyone expected some progress this year, things looked promising but now the situation is in a nosedive. They competed better against SJU but they still lost. The importance of the Saturday game for AM and the team is off the charts. If they lose they could be staring a 4-12 or 5-11 conference season directly in the face.

ud2 · #18 01-30-2014, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by Sea Bass

Interesting to see the coaching carousel. I would not be shocked if BG and Grant move on after this year. Things get crazier every year. I do miss the toughness of BGs team. IMO it is the main thing lacking from this current team. BG had 4 years of Huels (no post game) and managed to win a lot of basketball games. He had a bunch of tough guys (Warren, Wright, Johnson & Johnson, Huelsman, etc).

I think BG gets at least one more year. I'm not as sure about Grant, since he has been at Alabama longer than BG has been at GT, but I'm guessing he gets at least one more year also. I can't see GT giving BG an extension this year, and then firing him this year.

Hewitt has a pretty good resume IMO, I think the GT fans were possibly too critical of him. Hewitt did pretty good at both Siena and GT.

I think maybe part of Hewitt's catching so much criticism at GT was because he had to follow Bobby Cremins.

Do you think BG and Grant are going to resign their positions?

jack72 · #19 01-31-2014, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by ud2

I think BG gets at least one more year. I'm not as sure about Grant, since he has been at Alabama longer than BG has been at GT, but I'm guessing he gets at least one more year also. I can't see GT giving BG an extension this year, and then firing him this year.

Hewitt has a pretty good resume IMO, I think the GT fans were possibly too critical of him. Hewitt did pretty good at both Siena and GT.

I think maybe part of Hewitt's catching so much criticism at GT was because he had to follow Bobby Cremins.

Do you think BG and Grant are going to resign their positions?

Grant may take a job elsewhere. BG will not be offered another job, but will survive one more year.

rollo · #20 01-31-2014, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Sea Bass

The issue the AD has to deal with is this: Are things likely to get better in the next two years? I think everyone expected some progress this year, things looked promising but now the situation is in a nosedive.

This season's team is a DREAM job for 99% of mid-major coaches because of the number and experience of the upperclassmen...

Oliver - 4th year UD player
Vee - 5th year D1 player, 3 with UD (1 redshirt season + 2 in uniform)
Sibert - 4th year Junior, 2 with UD (1 redshirt + 1 in uniform)
#35 - 5th year senior, all with UD

Add to that mix Pierre (stud-in-training) and the Scott/Robinson combo who both showed a ton of progress last season and the '13-14 Flyers were built do contend for the 2014 A10 Title...regular season AND Tournament.

With that said, I ask: if not this season, when???

Next season?? We're losing 3 players with 4+ year experience/knowledge and replacing them with underclassmen that have more holes in them than NYC's Red Light District during Super Bowl week...and somehow we're supposed to believe year 4 will be better?

In October, Miller was handed a meal of caviar and filet mignon...and through his magic has turned it into a dozen White Castle sliders with a side of onion chips. Next season he's being handed a Wendy's Baconator meal...and I can't imagine what he'll be eating by the end of the season.

Sea Bass · #21 01-31-2014, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by rollo

This season's team is a DREAM job for 99% of mid-major coaches because of the number and experience of the upperclassmen...

Oliver - 4th year UD player
Vee - 5th year D1 player, 3 with UD (1 redshirt season + 2 in uniform)
Sibert - 4th year Junior, 2 with UD (1 redshirt + 1 in uniform)
#35 - 5th year senio

IMO these guys lack game experience. Vee and Sibert sat for two years at the first stop. Oliver didn't start getting major minutes until the end of his soph season and Matt didn't get them until his junior year.

While they all have experience not a lot of it is in actual games. IMO it is the hazard of taking guys that transfer down and have not played. The most influential transfer in memory (Dillard) for UD was a two year starter when he arrived. If you look at the school down south almost every transfer they have taken was a starter at their original school (Thornton, Lavender, Williams, Taylor, Stainbrook, Philmore, etc).

Being in a program or having a redshirt year is not a substitute for lack of PT.

ud2 · #22 01-31-2014, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by jack72

Grant may take a job elsewhere. BG will not be offered another job, but will survive one more year.

Yeah, you do see this sometimes, the coach starts feeling some heat and is able to bail to a lower level school before he gets fired, but I'm not saying that that will happen with Grant, I don't know what will happen with him. I think that is what happened with Jim Christian at TCU.

I also doubt that BG will get any offers if things don't improve for him at GT.

Sea Bass · #23 01-31-2014, 12:12 PM

GT has little invested in BG and they believe he is not the right coach they can let him go without a problem. Adding Pitt and Syracuse to the ACC made the GT job that much harder.

rollo · #24 01-31-2014, 12:13 PM

If you don't improve after 2 years of daily practice, lifting, conditioning and playing at UD, G'town, tOSU, _avier or anywhere else, 2 things must be true:

You s*ck and shouldn't have been offered a scholarship to begin with, or

Your practices s*ck as does your coach.

Practice makes perfect. And I have no reason to believe the G'town or tOSU coaches don't run efficient, effective practices. None.

Additionally, if these players are talented, they should be so hungry to finally play for UD that they approached practice with the desire to maximize their talents. Sitting the bench at for 2 years used to be the norm and never slowed down the good teams....and I'm not going to make excuses today for a formula that has always worked.

This was our season to win the A10...seniority...experience...hunger...depth..._a vier and Butler gone...all we needed was the right coach.

UDDoug · #25 02-02-2014, 07:07 PM

Disagree Rollo. Game experience matters far more. Taking guys that don't play and sit a year isn't the same as having guys who have played. They are better than freshmen, but not tons better.

When you screw up coaching change after coaching change, the third year is by far the hardest. You are in the worst situation from the standpoint your experience is in players you did not recruit, and the players you did not recruit lack experience. Getting those to mesh are more difficult. Earlier in a change your experience is in classes who have played, and if nothing else can revert to what they did in the prior system.

UD's biggest problem continues to be talent. There just aren't any players on this roster likely to be all conference at any point in their career. In my mind that includes Pierre, who disappears too much and is disinterested in defending - an ill plauguing all of them.

rollo · #26 02-02-2014, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by UDDoug

Disagree Rollo. Game experience matters far more. Taking guys that don't play and sit a year isn't the same as having guys who have played. They are better than freshmen, but not tons better.

Let's not pretend that Sibert and Sanford didn't play while at tOSU and G'town.

Sibert, for instance, played decent minutes in 37 of the 49 games he dressed as a Buckeye. He didn't come to UD as an afterthought and most certainly came here as an experienced Big10 transfer.

I haven't looked up Sanford's G'town stats but will when I get time...I don't think he played as much as Sibert but will have a full report later.

BTW...the Super Bowl commercials - so far - s*ck.

longtimefan67 · #27 02-02-2014, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by rollo

Let's not pretend that Sibert and Sanford didn't play while at tOSU and G'town.

Sibert, for instance, played decent minutes in 37 of the 49 games he dressed as a Buckeye. He didn't come to UD as an afterthought and most certainly came here as an experienced Big10 transfer.

I haven't looked up Sanford's G'town stats but will when I get time...I don't think he played as much as Sibert but will have a full report later.

BTW...the Super Bowl commercials - so far - s*ck.

That last one with Colbert was pretty good
Posted via Mobile Device

rollo · #28 02-02-2014, 07:46 PM

Pistacchio commercials are leading so far...

Avid Flyer · #29 02-02-2014, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by rollo

Let's not pretend that Sibert and Sanford didn't play while at tOSU and G'town.

Sibert, for instance, played decent minutes in 37 of the 49 games he dressed as a Buckeye. He didn't come to UD as an afterthought and most certainly came here as an experienced Big10 transfer.

I haven't looked up Sanford's G'town stats but will when I get time...I don't think he played as much as Sibert but will have a full report later.

BTW...the Super Bowl commercials - so far - s*ck.

So does the game. No interest in either team but I dispise the Seahawks coach for being a cheater. USC serves the suspension and he moves on unscathed with a bigger pay check. Oh well, life....

UDDoug · #30 02-09-2014, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by rollo

Let's not pretend that Sibert and Sanford didn't play while at tOSU and G'town.

Sibert, for instance, played decent minutes in 37 of the 49 games he dressed as a Buckeye. He didn't come to UD as an afterthought and most certainly came here as an experienced Big10 transfer.

I haven't looked up Sanford's G'town stats but will when I get time...I don't think he played as much as Sibert but will have a full report later.

BTW...the Super Bowl commercials - so far - s*ck.

We must have a difference of opinion as to what playing and decent minutes are. And as far as I know, Sibert dressed for every tOSU game. He just didn't play at all in 27 of the 76 games he was there.

In 2010-11 OSU played a toatl of 37 games. Sibert appeared in 25, and never got off the bench in 12. From the time the Big 10 started play OSU had 24 games, Sibert had more than 5 minutes in 7 games. Nearly all of those minutes are in garbage time of blowouts - in 6 of the 7 OSU won by a minimum of 18 points.

In 2012-13, OSU played 26 games once Big 10 started play. Sibert did not play in 15 of those games. He got more than 5 minutes in 7 games. All but one of those were gamesat in which OSU won by at least 16 points, most by nearly 30.

You can say he was an experienced player, but I'll never refer to anyone who played more than 5 minutes in a tight (less than 10 points) conference game twice in two years an experienced player.

My recollection is that Vee played even fewer meaningful minutes at Georgetown than Sibert, but since Sibert barely got off the bench in Big 10 and tournament play unless OSU was winning by 25, that may not be the case.

Glen Clark · #31 02-09-2014, 05:04 PM

UDDoug - thanks for bringing facts to the conversation.

___________________
You will become way less concerned with what other people think of you when you realize how seldom they do.
- David Foster Wallace

rollo · #32 02-09-2014, 08:58 PM

God, I love Glen...I'd be lost without his daily words of wisdom...and to honor him I'm either going to name my next dog or dump after him.

rollo · #33 02-09-2014, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by UDDoug

We must have a difference of opinion as to what playing and decent minutes are. And as far as I know, Sibert dressed for every tOSU game. He just didn't play at all in 27 of the 76 games he was there.

In 2010-11 OSU played a toatl of 37 games. Sibert appeared in 25, and never got off the bench in 12. From the time the Big 10 started play OSU had 24 games, Sibert had more than 5 minutes in 7 games. Nearly all of those minutes are in garbage time of blowouts - in 6 of the 7 OSU won by a minimum of 18 points.

In 2012-13, OSU played 26 games once Big 10 started play. Sibert did not play in 15 of those games. He got more than 5 minutes in 7 games. All but one of those were gamesat in which OSU won by at least 16 points, most by nearly 30.

You can say he was an experienced player, but I'll never refer to anyone who played more than 5 minutes in a tight (less than 10 points) conference game twice in two years an experienced player.

My recollection is that Vee played even fewer meaningful minutes at Georgetown than Sibert, but since Sibert barely got off the bench in Big 10 and tournament play unless OSU was winning by 25, that may not be the case.

You can question all you want the development of a frosh based on games played, but you can't deny the fact that it's at practice where they earn their stripes.

I've coached HS, grade school, CYO and public schools....and the freshman/sophomores who every day go up against the jrs and seniors and give it their all are the ones who improve leaps and bounds.

Sibert and Sanford didn't enroll at UD a raw recruit like Smith or Pollard. You'd be a fool to even think so...or support the thought.

The Gem · #34 02-10-2014, 07:25 AM

One thing I noticed about BG's tenure was the high turnover of his assistants. It seems like they would come and go after one or two years, which to me was one of the reasons his teams never quite got to where they should/could have. I think it says a lot about what is was like having him as a boss. As for OP that 98-99 season where the team took a step back was the year Ted Strickland left for a head coaching job. I think that was a factor that year. Then the team bounced back when Jirsa was hired. So far Archie's assistants have stayed put, unless I am forgetting something.

UDDoug · #35 02-10-2014, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by rollo

Sibert and Sanford didn't enroll at UD a raw recruit like Smith or Pollard. You'd be a fool to even think so...or support the thought.

Who is doing either?

The initial point was they lacked game experience. Which they did.

To dismiss that, and presume that as a fourth year junior they'd be the equivalent to a senior that's played meaningful minutes for three years, you'd be a fool .... or to support the thought that game experience is irrelevant and all that matters is practice.

Glen Clark · #36 02-10-2014, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by UDDoug

Who is doing either?

The initial point was they lacked game experience. Which they did.

To dismiss that, and presume that as a fourth year junior they'd be the equivalent to a senior that's played meaningful minutes for three years, you'd be a fool .... or to support the thought that game experience is irrelevant and all that matters is practice.

We have a winner!

___________________
Whether your glass is half empty or half full, you still have more to drink.

rollo · #37 02-10-2014, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by UDDoug

The initial point was they lacked game experience. Which they did.

No, the initial point was that they transferred to UD and in their first year of eligibility were 4th year juniors. You claimed they were less than that and insinuated that practice isn't as important as game time...I argue practice is as important.

Quantifying this: 7 days/week, 2 games/week, 5 practices/week.

2 games at 20 min/game = 40 min/week and might included 10 fg attempts and, maybe 4 fts.

5 practices/week = 10 hours (600 minutes) and will included hundreds of FGs and FTs as well as simulated games...

If those 40 game minutes > 600 practice minutes, you are saying on a weighted basis that a game is 15X more productive in terms of learning and developing than our practices. If that's the case, our practices are a complete waste of time. But that would be foolish to say because we all know that 'practice makes perfect'...not 'games make perfect'...there's a reason for that subtle but distinct difference.

Originally Posted by UDDoug

To dismiss that, and presume that as a fourth year junior they'd be the equivalent to a senior that's played meaningful minutes for three years, you'd be a fool .... or to support the thought that game experience is irrelevant and all that matters is practice.

Let's look at the Matt Kav's situation and see if practice makes any difference.

As a freshman he was a vegetable...and as a sophomore saw some playing time but not much. In two years Kavs scored a whopping 73 pts. (Sanford in 2 years at G'town scored 99 pts and Sibert in 2 years scored 123).

As a junior....with little game experience under his belt...he explodes onto the scene with just under 300 pts and 200 rbs. How did he get so productive w/o game experience? I'll tell you - PRACTICE! And that has to be the only answer because he had little valuable game experience.

And to prove that PRACTICE matters, let's continue to examine Matt's UD basketball career. But we have to jump over the 2012-13 season when Matt 'redshirted' and stopped practicing.

Jump to 2013-14: As a 5th year senior whose scoring and rebounding average has been cut in half, shooting % has dropped, FT% has dropped and whose overall play has been nothing short of disappointing, the one factor that comes to play and explains his drop in performance is simple: He didn't practice shooting, defense, rebounding at a competitive level for an entire season. And he never recovered...although he's showing signs of coming around as this season has progressed, due mostly by the repetition and competitive nature of PRACTICE. Had Matt been a true redshirt and been allowed to continue practicing during his suspension, do you believe that his number would be this disappointing?? Absolutely not. Which proves my original point.

Sibert and Sanford may have redshirted but neither has stopped playing since enrolling at OSU and G'town which is why they can be considered experienced college players and we can and should expect leadership and consistency from them.

Does practice matter? No doubt. Matt's case study proves that.

In summary: Practice is where you improve yourself. Games are where you prove yourself.

How's that for a fact, Glen?

Originally Posted by Glen Clark

We have a winner!

Let it be known and stated on the record that there is a huge difference between being well-read, educated and intelligent*.

Medford · #38 02-10-2014, 10:38 AM

Truth is, both are important. In practice, you can improve your individual skills as well as your team skills. However, those improvement come in a controlled environment, often against people you've practiced countless hours against where the stakes are about as low as they can get. On game day, the lights come on, fans show up and either cheer for you or against you, the opponent is somebody you've only faced a handful of times, sometimes never before. The stakes are higher, the environment is anything but controlled.

IMHO, you are both right. The practice and conditioning/lifting time spent at their prior stops were certainly an asset, but neither player had much of a chance to display those talents and practice time at their prior stop. I don't care what you do in practice, there has to be some lingering doubt in the back of your mind when you start playing in games that matter. The only way to gain that confidence is to successfully take what your learned in the practice and demonstrate that you can do it in games.

springborofan · #39 02-10-2014, 10:48 AM

I'm going to throw one other wrinkle in the argument. Rollo has a good point but you also don't practice in a vacuum...you practice w/ teammates.

Yes, all of our Sr/Jr's have years of experience but not much time together---not like traditional Sr/Jr classes that have played together for 3+ years.

2 yrs ago DMO/Kav/Vee (RS)/Gavs

1 yr ago DMO/Vee/Sibert (RS)/Gavs (injured most of the yr)

Only this year are all practicing together. Maybe the synergy is just starting to develop?

rollo · #40 02-10-2014, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by springborofan

I'm going to throw one other wrinkle in the argument. Rollo has a good point but you also don't practice in a vacuum...you practice w/ teammates.

They are your teammates but they are also transformed at practice into a scout team that runs your opponents offensive sets, presses, etc. So while they are your teammates, they aren't.

Sea Bass · #41 02-10-2014, 11:10 AM

I have heard for the past couple of years of the DMO can light it up from the three point line ... at practice. Only in the last month have we seen that practice ability translated to something that happens consistently in a game.

Generally taking something that is executed in practice to in a game is not a smooth transition. No matter how intense the practice it does not produce the adrenaline and emotion that happens during the real thing.

steve · #42 02-10-2014, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by UDDoug

Who is doing either?

The initial point was they lacked game experience. Which they did.

To dismiss that, and presume that as a fourth year junior they'd be the equivalent to a senior that's played meaningful minutes for three years, you'd be a fool .... or to support the thought that game experience is irrelevant and all that matters is practice.

I don't think they need to have played senior type minutes to be considered experienced. These guys were NOT wet behind the ears and especially in regards to everything else in being a mature person/player and in regards to the college transition. Sibert averaged double figure minutes per game at OSU....That said, naturally, on the flip there's an adjustment period as they were off the court an entire year when they were finally eligible.....You still see that in Siberts game, or did the first half of the year...

UDDoug · #43 02-10-2014, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by rollo

They are your teammates but they are also transformed at practice into a scout team that runs your opponents offensive sets, presses, etc. So while they are your teammates, they aren't.

Which is what you are doing when you sit two years, and in your transfer year. You aren't running your sets, you are running the opponents.

Practice is not irrelevant. And transfers with three years of practice aren't freshmen who haven't practiced at all at a D1 level.

But all that practice with little game experience is nothing like all the practice with game experience, in your system, with your teammates. It often takes experience at game speed to translate skills you've developed or to prove to you those skills are lacking. Practice isn't game speed, it's controlled, and often involves small groups rather than 5 on 5 full court.

UDBaby · #44 02-10-2014, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by UDDoug

But all that practice with little game experience is nothing like all the practice with game experience, in your system, with your teammates. It often takes experience at game speed to translate skills you've developed or to prove to you those skills are lacking. Practice isn't game speed, it's controlled, and often involves small groups rather than 5 on 5 full court.

Posted here is a link to an article by Hal Galper, a monster jazz musician and teacher. The article discusses the difference between practice and performance. While Galper is specifically addressing musical performance, I think his insights on the subject transcend music and are extremely useful for this discussion.

http://www.halgalper.com/articles/stagefright-and-relaxation/

Here is one snippet from Galper's article on the difference between practice and putting it on the line.

"Students can become dependant upon their practicing attitude and feel secure in it because they have more experience with it. When they find that the practicing attitude doesn’t work on the bandstand, that security becomes removed and they get nervous.

The only way to correct this problem is to acquire enough playing experience to develop a playing attitude that one feels secure with. A playing attitude can not be developed in a practice room playing by yourself. It can only be learned from years of playing on the bandstand with others."

rollo · #45 02-10-2014, 02:26 PM

I have not attended any of Archie's practices but did with Gregory and he made every one more demanding and more physical than any game his players might have that week. Allen Iverson would have hated BG.

And I have to believe that Miller is no different for no other reason than I doubt Gavrilovich got his concussion doing the Mikan drill.

longtimefan · #46 02-10-2014, 02:31 PM

Practice is just that, practice. Many transfers who sit out a year struggle for awhile when they start playing the next year. This is because they have not been playing in game situations, even though they have been practicing for a year. Practice, we're talkin' 'bout practice??? Practice??

UACFlyer · #47 02-10-2014, 02:56 PM

I was at a game recently where for some reason I focused on a player shooting around just minutes prior to start of the game. What attracted my attention, I think, was that I noticed the player was making three-after-three.

I started to count...and the player made nine (9) straight without a miss...and that was after I started counting. I thought it was quite impressive, even though I knew the player is a great three point shooter.

The game started and the player missed three wide open three attempts in a row before hitting one.

It's just different!

Medford · #48 02-10-2014, 03:10 PM

Another thing to consider...

Most guys are not blessed like Pollard and play next to Jabahri Parker and 2 kids that signed at Illinois. Most are the MAN in high school, largely competing against players that won't play a lick of organized basketball once high school is over; they're taller, quicker, and jump higher than anything the competition throws at them.

Some are blessed to carry that experience of being vastly superior to everyone around them the moment they arrive on campus, most are not. For 2 years, Sibert and Sanford were never called upon to "be the man", they rarely, if ever had plays specifically drawn up for them, the fate of their teams was largely independend of what they did on game day. The moment they stepped foot at UD they were hailed as saviors, guys that would be instant scorers and "take this team to the next level" I certainly won't complain about the talent of either, its easy to see why both were top 150 recruits (and in Siberts case, top 50), but it takes some time to get used to being "the man" again. To feel comfortable having plays specifically designed for your talents in relation to the oppossition, to be counted on by the Pollards and Kyle Davis of the teams to deliver them victories while their contributions go largely unnoticed.

Pierre has stuggled with that. He went from a highly efficient SF that complimented the talents of Dilliard pretty well to a guy struggling to hit shoots as he became the focus of the offense. He's made strides in this regard as the season has progressed, and its obvious he's been aggressive on the boards all season long despite struggling at times, but its an adjusment from being one of the guys to being THE guy your team is counting on (and the other team is focusing on)

UDBaby · #49 02-10-2014, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by UACFlyer

It's just different!

"The playing attitude is developed by getting on the bandstand, forgetting everything you’ve ever practiced, and just “going for it and hoping it comes out okay.”

UDDoug · #50 02-10-2014, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by rollo

I have not attended any of Archie's practices but did with Gregory and he made every one more demanding and more physical than any game his players might have that week. Allen Iverson would have hated BG.

And I have to believe that Miller is no different for no other reason than I doubt Gavrilovich got his concussion doing the Mikan drill.

It's still not the same. You have teammates running scout team stuff, and no matter how hard they go they can't run scout team as well as the opponent. After all, every few days they are running different sets and defenses. Today and tomorrow I run Richmond, Thursday and Friday it's Rhode Island.

And, if you are in your transfer year, or you aren't in the rotation, the vast majority of the reps you get are running scout team - not what you would run if you actually got in the game.

It's not irrelevant. It should make you much better than a freshman. But it isn't the same as having actually played in games. And just looking at class year, and saying Sibert should be Jordair Jett - well it's likely not going to happen. If your best players are largely transfers who sat on the bench somewhere else for two years, well you have some issues.

rollo · #51 02-10-2014, 04:32 PM

Does anyone have an data on Junior College transfers and teams that load up on them year after year and are successful?? Figgie???

This whole discussion I find interesting and it got me thinking about the JC transfer (who can play immediately) and the 4-year school transfer (who must sit a year). Common sense says that the JC transfer, not knowing the players or system of the school he's transferring to, would be at a disadvantage for playing time compared to the 4-year school transfer who gets a year to adjust to both.

Is that the case? Or does UD just not know how to recruit transfers?

UDBrian · #52 02-10-2014, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by UDBaby

The only way to correct this problem is to acquire enough playing experience to develop a playing attitude that one feels secure with. A playing attitude can not be developed in a practice room playing by yourself. It can only be learned from years of playing on the bandstand with others."

I do agree with this from a confidence and development standpoint. But, skills musically and in basketball are developed by yourself and then perfected in a group environment. I remember watching lebon practicing a single move. He worked on it one hour a day until he was finally ready to use it during a game. Without that individual practice your individual moves will never be good enough to succeed in team play. DMO spent a ton of his time shooting he improved his shooting but I think more than anything he improved his confidence. Great shooters always feel like the next one is going in. I'm not sure DMO is at that point but he is getting close

CE80 · #53 02-10-2014, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by rollo

Does anyone have an data on Junior College transfers and teams that load up on them year after year and are successful?? Figgie???

This whole discussion I find interesting and it got me thinking about the JC transfer (who can play immediately) and the 4-year school transfer (who must sit a year). Common sense says that the JC transfer, not knowing the players or system of the school he's transferring to, would be at a disadvantage for playing time compared to the 4-year school transfer who gets a year to adjust to both.

Is that the case? Or does UD just not know how to recruit transfers?

I don't have an idea of how many impact JC transfers there are but I would also look at 5th year seniors playing at another school for their last year of eligibility. It is antedotal but TJ McConnell seems to be doing OK after sitting out a year. This begs the comparison of players moving up a notch or 2 versus moving down a notch or 2.

UDBaby · #54 02-10-2014, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by UDBrian

I do agree with this from a confidence and development standpoint. But, skills musically and in basketball are developed by yourself and then perfected in a group environment. I remember watching lebon practicing a single move. He worked on it one hour a day until he was finally ready to use it during a game. Without that individual practice your individual moves will never be good enough to succeed in team play. DMO spent a ton of his time shooting he improved his shooting but I think more than anything he improved his confidence. Great shooters always feel like the next one is going in. I'm not sure DMO is at that point but he is getting close

Confidence is important but its a lot more than that.

I didn't post the article or the gist of it to argue for one vs. the other (practicing vs. performance)....by no means. Of course you need to practice before you can ever think about performing, musically or sports.

My point in posting the article was to differentiate the mindset and experience that is necessary to transfer what you practice onto the stage, or basketball court; both are quite different and one does not necessarily beget the other -great practice player = great gamer? Maybe the great performer comes from practice + being in and comfortably handling game situations.

You should shoot 1000 FT's a week in practice to perfect your stroke. Perfecting the ability to knock 'em down in a hostile environment to ice a game comes with having experienced the situation and knowing how to deal with it....

rollo · #55 02-10-2014, 04:51 PM

Now that we're all in agreement, we're getting somewhere!

rollo · #56 02-11-2014, 07:43 AM

Here's a long article by Sports Illustrated from last month discussing this very topic and includes input from Hurley as well as discussion of GW's transfers and the issues with AAU/Prep Schools, etc...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/col...ton-colonials/

The long and short of it is that transfers work and are wanted.

steve · #57 02-11-2014, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by Medford

Another thing to consider...

Most guys are not blessed like Pollard and play next to Jabahri Parker and 2 kids that signed at Illinois. Most are the MAN in high school, largely competing against players that won't play a lick of organized basketball once high school is over; they're taller, quicker, and jump higher than anything the competition throws at them.

Some are blessed to carry that experience of being vastly superior to everyone around them the moment they arrive on campus, most are not. For 2 years, Sibert and Sanford were never called upon to "be the man", they rarely, if ever had plays specifically drawn up for them, the fate of their teams was largely independend of what they did on game day. The moment they stepped foot at UD they were hailed as saviors, guys that would be instant scorers and "take this team to the next level" I certainly won't complain about the talent of either, its easy to see why both were top 150 recruits (and in Siberts case, top 50), but it takes some time to get used to being "the man" again. To feel comfortable having plays specifically designed for your talents in relation to the oppossition, to be counted on by the Pollards and Kyle Davis of the teams to deliver them victories while their contributions go largely unnoticed.

Pierre has stuggled with that. He went from a highly efficient SF that complimented the talents of Dilliard pretty well to a guy struggling to hit shoots as he became the focus of the offense. He's made strides in this regard as the season has progressed, and its obvious he's been aggressive on the boards all season long despite struggling at times, but its an adjusment from being one of the guys to being THE guy your team is counting on (and the other team is focusing on)

You said that and understand that perfectly. Kudos.......Huge mindset adjustment as you alluded to. It's another reason just why leaders are so few and far between. Every kid/person/player in any sport is looking for leadership. Someone that can make the task, the play, the possession, the AB, or journey a tad easier or more successful. Few want to be in that situation because of fear....

I think the big thing with Pierre is he and DO are the only guys on the team that have an inside game and presence and Pierre is really the only guy with a signature post move as he's highly efficient on the blocks with his half hook...If they were getting anything consistently from their BIGS I believe Pierre would be in a much better spot statistically and, naturally, team wise. I see a future star in Pierre and if he can become a better ball handler in the open court he'll consummate his game..

Windy City Flyer · #58 02-11-2014, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by rollo

Does anyone have an data on Junior College transfers and teams that load up on them year after year and are successful?? Figgie???

I think it's a coaching preference more than anything. Buzz Williams, Huggins, Alford (Before UCLA), Pitino, Greg Marshall, and every coach at UNLV tend to recruit the top talent from the JUCO ranks. Many of these players are not academic qualifiers which may be a reason UD coaches have shied away.

Here's a list of the top 100 JUCO transfers from last year.
http://www.jucorecruiting.com/2013-juco-top-100-player-rankings/

Here's another link to "up transfer" where players transfer from a one school to another using a NCAA's grad-transfer exception.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/col...-transferring/