|
Post by wsu97 on Feb 16, 2014 12:16:29 GMT -5
You are right tg, we have a winning record....14-13. Thank goodness we scheduled two div iii teams or you probably would not be able to say that. And I guess you want to "hang your hat" on that rpi thing. Let me see...344-125 or so....that puts your hat on about 220. Hmm a great place to hang your hat. Obvious problem is this record and this rpi is not even close to what most fans expected. I know, I know. You are all about gpa, not rpi or w-l. But most fans want their team to do well and are disappointed when it does not. That is what you are hearing. We shouldn't even be worried about GPA. We should be much more concerned with graduation rate. As mentioned above, Donlon has graduated 7 players and 12 have transferred out in his tenure.
|
|
|
Post by bballraider on Feb 16, 2014 15:52:35 GMT -5
You are right tg, we have a winning record....14-13. Thank goodness we scheduled two div iii teams or you probably would not be able to say that. And I guess you want to "hang your hat" on that rpi thing. Let me see...344-125 or so....that puts your hat on about 220. Hmm a great place to hang your hat. Obvious problem is this record and this rpi is not even close to what most fans expected. I know, I know. You are all about gpa, not rpi or w-l. But most fans want their team to do well and are disappointed when it does not. That is what you are hearing. We shouldn't even be worried about GPA. We should be much more concerned with graduation rate. As mentioned above, Donlon has graduated 7 players and 12 have transferred out in his tenure. Actually whom ever made the list left Darling and Vest off their list. They both graduated in 3.5 years. And as long as transfers were in good standing when they leave, you have to give some credit to the coaching and academic staffs for doing their job on the academic side.
|
|
|
Post by mrose on Feb 16, 2014 16:10:45 GMT -5
Let me preface my comment, I heard this last night on Channel 7 as I was getting ready for bed and I wasn't paying much attention to the news. So, maybe I didn't hear properly what BD said or perhaps it was out of context.
In a snippet about the Oakland game I thought I heard BD say (paraphrasing): I told the players they need to win a game like Sundays's game for seeding. We aren't BUILT to get into the NCAA any other way than to win the HL tourney, so games like Oakland are important.
If I heard that correct, whose fault is it the Raiders aren't built to get into the NCAA any other way than to win conference tournament of the 14th rated conference?? This is his 4th year--these are his kids. He was the Top assistant for several years before being promoted to head coach. Whose fault is it this year's team isn't built to get to the NCAA without winning the conference tournament?
|
|
|
Post by Big D on Feb 16, 2014 16:15:26 GMT -5
We shouldn't even be worried about GPA. We should be much more concerned with graduation rate. As mentioned above, Donlon has graduated 7 players and 12 have transferred out in his tenure. Actually whom ever made the list left Darling and Vest off their list. They both graduated in 3.5 years. And as long as transfers were in good standing when they leave, you have to give some credit to the coaching and academic staffs for doing their job on the academic side. Nine graduates to 12 transfers is still a horrible number. At the end of this year it should be 12 graduates to 12 transfers if no one leaves the team early. That is still a horrible number. You cannot build a program if you are losing 1/2 of your recruits to transfer. You end up constantly trying to rebuild instead of improving. Donlon either needs to do a much better job evaluating recruits before they get to WSU to make sure they fit his system and team dynamics or he needs to do a much better job at player retention. You are doing something seriously wrong when you lose an average of 3 players a year.
|
|
|
Post by Big D on Feb 16, 2014 16:18:27 GMT -5
Let me preface my comment, I heard this last night on Channel 7 as I was getting ready for bed and I wasn't paying much attention to the news. So, maybe I didn't hear properly what BD said or perhaps it was out of context. In a snippet about the Oakland game I thought I heard BD say (paraphrasing): I told the players they need to win a game like Sundays's game for seeding. We aren't BUILT to get into the NCAA any other way than to win the HL tourney, so games like Oakland are important. I believe he was talking about our potential to get an at large bid to the NCAA tournament. It is still his fault because he didn't put together a strong enough schedule or win enough gams to have a chance at an at large bid.
|
|
|
Post by bballraider on Feb 16, 2014 16:55:47 GMT -5
Actually whom ever made the list left Darling and Vest off their list. They both graduated in 3.5 years. And as long as transfers were in good standing when they leave, you have to give some credit to the coaching and academic staffs for doing their job on the academic side. Nine graduates to 12 transfers is still a horrible number. At the end of this year it should be 12 graduates to 12 transfers if no one leaves the team early. That is still a horrible number. You cannot build a program if you are losing 1/2 of your recruits to transfer. You end up constantly trying to rebuild instead of improving. Donlon either needs to do a much better job evaluating recruits before they get to WSU to make sure they fit his system and team dynamics or he needs to do a much better job at player retention. You are doing something seriously wrong when you lose an average of 3 players a year. It's hard to control the transfer rate and evaluate talent with Billy's systems. Most high school players have never played in a system where so much is required of them mentally. And some never do totally pick it up. I would have to say as far as talent, most of the kids BD has recruited are really good players, even the ones that transfer. And with today's kids that want everything now, it's hard to keep 13 players happy or to red shirt even when it is better for them and the team. Now let me add, that the make up of the team is totally in control of the coach, and when you have a lot if talent that is not flourishing in your current system, then you need to make adjustments. I think Billy is slow in his adjustments because he believes the light bulb will finally come on for the players, instead of making the switch easier to turn on. I'm more in the camp of giving 1st time head coaches 6 years on their own as a head coach, unless they totally tank. I think first time head coaches always believe their way is right, and they can improve on what others have done. Because if this I think most make mistakes, some have the talent to overcome those mistakes, while a few just nail it from the beginning. If the coaches continue to make the same mistakes, and fail, then they should move on. Believe it or not, I think Schilling would be a very good head coach somewhere now. Schilling made some huge mistakes in his first year, and then went overboard in the opposite direction to try to make sure he didn't make that mistake again. I believe he finally realized his recruiting errors and was going to right the ship, about the time he was fired. But his record was so bad because of his early errors that it took him too long to recover, so I totally understand why people were ready to dump him. But I would have kept him at least one more year, then again a may have a little more patience then others, sometimes to a fault.
|
|
|
Post by wsutommygun on Feb 16, 2014 16:58:26 GMT -5
It's also possible the comments at this time of the year considering how it has gone would force one to use that type of wording. Who knows what the numbers would look like if we had won every game and our opponents all had very good seasons. I have a feeling MRose just wants to be mad at Billy so, it doesn't matter what he meant ( only the way MRose wanted to take it ).
|
|
|
Post by wsutommygun on Feb 16, 2014 17:08:13 GMT -5
Keith, I don't have a problem with what most fans want ( at the end of your last post ). I also know something about blind loyalty. We have a mutual friend that wants to hold WSU to a higher standard than his favorite NFL team. That's fine because he doesn't owe anything to Wright State but, talk about following two teams for years and the guy ends up sticking to the one that is a total mess and has been more often than my Raiders.
|
|
|
Post by Raider Fanatic on Feb 16, 2014 17:18:21 GMT -5
It's hard to control the transfer rate and evaluate talent with Billy's systems. Most high school players have never played in a system where so much is required of them mentally. And some never do totally pick it up. I would have to say as far as talent, most of the kids BD has recruited are really good players, even the ones that transfer. And with today's kids that want everything now, it's hard to keep 13 players happy or to red shirt even when it is better for them and the team. Now let me add, that the make up of the team is totally in control of the coach, and when you have a lot if talent that is not flourishing in your current system, then you need to make adjustments. I think Billy is slow in his adjustments because he believes the light bulb will finally come on for the players, instead of making the switch easier to turn on. I'm more in the camp of giving 1st time head coaches 6 years on their own as a head coach, unless they totally tank. I think first time head coaches always believe their way is right, and they can improve on what others have done. Because if this I think most make mistakes, some have the talent to overcome those mistakes, while a few just nail it from the beginning. If the coaches continue to make the same mistakes, and fail, then they should move on. Believe it or not, I think Schilling would be a very good head coach somewhere now. Schilling made some huge mistakes in his first year, and then went overboard in the opposite direction to try to make sure he didn't make that mistake again. I believe he finally realized his recruiting errors and was going to right the ship, about the time he was fired. But his record was so bad because of his early errors that it took him too long to recover, so I totally understand why people were ready to dump him. But I would have kept him at least one more year, then again a may have a little more patience then others, sometimes to a fault. bballraider, I agree with much of what you are saying about giving a young coach time to grow. There are 2 points that I disagree with. 1. I do not think most of the kids Billy recruited are really good ball players, even the ones that transferred. I think only 2 of the 12 kids that transferred from Wright State ended up playing D1 ball at another program. Most ended up at D2 and NAIA schools. If they were all good players they would have found their way on a D1 roster somewhere. 2. I think Billy can do a much better job of figuring out if a recruit can work in his system. The biggest thing is he needs to know how the kid feels about playing in a slow down 1/2 court system. If he wants to play in an uptempo system, he probably isn't going to be happy here. That reminds me of an article I read 2 years ago when we got a commitment from Jacoby Roddy. I remember reading a quote from him saying how excited he was to get to Wright State and make the transition to SF. He also talked about how Donlon sold him on Wright State by telling him we would be playing a more uptempo system. I remembered that quote going into the season because I was excited to hear that we wouldn't be playing slow ball forever. As it turns out, Donlon ended up playing Roddy at PF and never transitioned to an uptempo offense. Kids transfer for many reason, but it isn't too hard to understand why a kid would want to transfer when they felt they were lied to during the recruiting process. I think Donlon sometimes "sells" Wright State to a recruit more than he can deliver and that has lead to many of our transfers. A little more honesty might make all of the difference in regards to player retention.
|
|
|
Post by hhgreen on Feb 16, 2014 17:38:15 GMT -5
I think if Donlon is recruiting players that want to play street ball and get up and down the court he needs to stop trying to turn them into something they are not. Quit wasting time trying to train a kid who is used to running up and down the court into a half court player on defense. I think he sees their athleticism and he sees a player that can put out a 150% playing defense and can be the ultimate defender after a year of training. The problem is most of those types are not going to like that kind of game. He needs gym rats and high basketball IQ players that want to play in a system where nobody is a selfish player.
|
|
|
Post by bballraider on Feb 16, 2014 17:51:14 GMT -5
bballraider, I agree with much of what you are saying about giving a young coach time to grow. There are 2 points that I disagree with. 1. I do not think most of the kids Billy recruited are really good ball players, even the ones that transferred. I think only 2 of the 12 kids that transferred from Wright State ended up playing D1 ball at another program. Most ended up at D2 and NAIA schools. If they were all good players they would have found their way on a D1 roster somewhere. 2. I think Billy can do a much better job of figuring out if a recruit can work in his system. The biggest thing is he needs to know how the kid feels about playing in a slow down 1/2 court system. If he wants to play in an uptempo system, he probably isn't going to be happy here. That reminds me of an article I read 2 years ago when we got a commitment from Jacoby Roddy. I remember reading a quote from him saying how excited he was to get to Wright State and make the transition to SF. He also talked about how Donlon sold him on Wright State by telling him we would be playing a more uptempo system. I remembered that quote going into the season because I was excited to hear that we wouldn't be playing slow ball forever. As it turns out, Donlon ended up playing Roddy at PF and never transitioned to an uptempo offense. Kids transfer for many reason, but it isn't too hard to understand why a kid would want to transfer when they felt they were lied to during the recruiting process. I think Donlon sometimes "sells" Wright State to a recruit more than he can deliver and that has lead to many of our transfers. A little more honesty might make all of the difference in regards to player retention. Definitely good points. And I also agree with Big D that Billy needs to work on his retention of players more, or recruit better players, instead of just filling the roster, unless they are developmental big guys that know that they won't be starting, and will have to put in the work to get better. If these guys don't pan out I understand them transferring which is better for both parties involved. As to talent, I still think most were talented and had good high school credentials. Basketball IQ may be more of question. it's hard to go to college academically your first year and adapt, while being shown something totally new and complex on the basketball court. Especially when things came naturally on the court for most of these players before. So I could see players dropping down levels to make it easier on themselves to be successful, plus they want to play now, so they don't want to sit out a year. As far as Billy not telling the recruits the facts, I agree with you here. I don't think Billy lied to the kids on how he wanted to play or play them, I just think he didn't succeed in getting all the other parts he needed to do that. Billy and his staff needed to get more bigger and coordinated big men, we've been running with only 2 big physical guys in the paint, and then are forced to play most everybody else out of position. But getting big men to commit to a mid-major is hard, especially ones that can contribute right away. Mid-majors tend to get more guys that can develop into good post players. The problem Billy has had is not finding these players and then getting them willing to stay on the bench and develop. This is were BD really needs to improve, getting big man class depth, which would mean he carries less guards and small forwards, and would have to be more selective in the ones he does recruit. You almost need one of these big men for each class, and even supplement that with JC players for the ones that don't develop. I commend Daniel Meyers for having the patience and understanding what will make him a better player. One thing Billy should do is make sure the players know it is going to be difficult the early years and they may not get as much playing time as they would like. I would tell them with his style 75% of the freshman will barely see the court. But not many HS players that are stars want to hear they will be on the bench the early part if their college days. So it's kind of a catch-22, when you want the better mid-major level talent.
|
|
|
Post by mrose on Feb 16, 2014 17:59:10 GMT -5
I'm not mad at Billy. However, I am disappointed in his results--especially this year's.
I didn't get mad when I heard those comments either, but I was shocked. Really shocked. The little woman doesn't give a crap about college hoops, but I looked at her and was going to ask her if BD said what I just thought I heard him say, but she like 99.9% of women in the Dayton area was oblivious to Mike Hartsock's sports segment, so I knew it was pointless to ask her if BD said what I thought.
Yet, I still muttered out loud, "I can't believe he said that." The team isn't built to go to the NCAA unless we when the Horizon League tournament.
Here's why I'm shocked. I, like many many people, thought the team was built to go to the NCAA tournament without winning the HL. Now, they've completely underachieved and Billy made a bad decision to schedule weak teams, but 4 months ago I felt the team we had returning (with the weak schedule) would have 5 losses max at this stage. That would have made us a bubble team. I thought it was plausible to have only 3 or 4 losses at this stage. Because of the weak schedule we wouldn't have been a lock for the tourney, but we would've been in serious discussion with the so called experts (Lunardi, Palm, etc.,).
In my humble opinion, that would have been a team built for the NCAA--One that the NCAA selection committee gives serious consideration to.
That's why I couldn't believe what I heard. I didn't hear Billy say this has been a disappointing season (so far), or underachieving, or one that's been bitten by injuries and a key suspension. I heard his team wasn't built for a NCAA run...
With Billy's sentiment of the team not being built for an At-large was that the precursor for scheduling soft? Going into the season did he not have confidence in this team, being they weren't built for a NCAA at-large?
Maybe he misspoke. Maybe I heard him wrong or the Channel 7 clip was out of context. But, if he really said the team isn't built for a NCAA At-large there's only one person responsible for that.
|
|
|
Post by raiderfan14 on Feb 16, 2014 18:48:08 GMT -5
I welcome feedback that calls me an idiot but as an avid basketball fan with no real technical understanding beyond the high school level I have to wonder this. BD team clearly is well coached if not one of the nations better coachesd defenses. Why not let our guys run like they did in desperation at the end of today's game where we closed a 13 pt deficit and won. We seriously have offensive talent and no post player that traditionally calls for a slow 1/2 court offense. Why not run and gun with our quick talented guys, especially with our depth!! We won because of depth today. What am I missing?
|
|
|
Post by jumbojimbo on Feb 16, 2014 19:23:23 GMT -5
I welcome feedback that calls me an idiot but as an avid basketball fan with no real technical understanding beyond the high school level I have to wonder this. BD team clearly is well coached if not one of the nations better coachesd defenses. Why not let our guys run like they did in desperation at the end of today's game where we closed a 13 pt deficit and won. We seriously have offensive talent and no post player that traditionally calls for a slow 1/2 court offense. Why not run and gun with our quick talented guys, especially with our depth!! We won because of depth today. What am I missing? My feeling is that right or wrong, Coach Donlon believes that you can't have it both ways. You can't both play the defense we want to play and also run on offense. If you run on offense you'll give up easy points on missed baskets and turnovers. For example, you are looking at today's game and saying "wow, that run and gun offense saved our butt". But what Coach said after the game is that we played poor offense, turned the ball over all game and didn't make free throws and still won, and THAT is what a good defense does. His quote was something along the lines of "...if you don't think defense wins championships, you don't know much about basketball". Now, is he right? Well, last year when we were winning games he was. This year when we lose games the jackals are circling and calling for blood. Shrug. The same question comes up about rebounding. Everyone wants to rebound and they hate to see us run 5 guys back on missed shots. But that's a choice we make. Coach has said flat out that you have a choice, rebound and give up easy points, or get back on defense. He CHOOSES to get back on defense. Not because he hates rebounding and would suspend any player who got a double-double, but because he thinks it the right choice strategically. Again, last year, yes, he was coach of the year, brilliant, one possession away from making the NCAA. This year he's an idiot. Personally I think our weakness is our predictability. Teams know they can be lazy on rebounding, they can run the ball up uncontested, they can do certain things because we NEVER rebound, we NEVER press. I'd like to see us rebound occasionally. I'd like to see us press once in a while. I'd like to see us run on offense once in a while. What I don't like to see us do the same thing on every possession in every game. Last year and early this year it was dribble across the time line then stop, wait. Defense could count on that and relax.
|
|
|
Post by bballraider on Feb 16, 2014 19:41:06 GMT -5
Personally I think our weakness is our predictability. Teams know they can be lazy on rebounding, they can run the ball up uncontested, they can do certain things because we NEVER rebound, we NEVER press. I'd like to see us rebound occasionally. I'd like to see us press once in a while. I'd like to see us run on offense once in a while. What I don't like to see us do the same thing on every possession in every game. Last year and early this year it was dribble across the time line then stop, wait. Defense could count on that and relax. I agree with most of what you said, especially the predictability thing, and definitely in league play where everybody knows your plays and tendencies. I think with young inexperienced teams you can't change up things as much, you concentrate more on execution and getting things right. But with an experienced team like we have, I believe you should be adding new things as the year goes on, a few wrinkles here and there, as the basic fundamental offense and defense should be well known by now. Something to throw the other team off just a little. As we know, the Raiders do not have much room for error, and one or two possessions can make a difference in a game. And if something new works, you keep at it til the other team stops it. If it doesn't, well you can scrap it and move on. One thing that we do have, which helps with the unpredictability is that other teams can't concentrate on shutting one guy down, since we are so balanced. I would like us to change up defenses more, especially out of time outs when the other team has devised a play against our main man-to-man.
|
|