2018-19 basketball enhancements

[Turbine]

... I thought the run me made did more for our recruiting than had we lost 5-10 games more but somehow lucked into the tournament to play a game we are likely the underdog to by a substantial margin.

If you are a good player, would you rather play for a coach who seemingly has control of his program and can put out a dominating product or one that is floating along just to hope to make the NCAA tournament? I think most players would want to play for the coach and program that has had as much long term success as possible.

The goal is to build a program that is consistently winning and that winning will set it up to make the NCAA tournament consistently as well. The players, coaches and staff are more tested and prepared for crunchtime when they expect to win every game rather than a selected few.

This ^

[VObserver]

You are thinking of it on a per year basis. Do you want to go to the tournament in 2018 or do you want to build a program? All of the Mid Majors you see in the tournament now on a consistent basis did this by winning championships and recruiting to a coach, system and program focused on winning. They didn't build them by hitting the 5 star lottery every time they went to a random tournament.

I think that's the difference. People think that one year where you may actually have a mediocre year but somehow find your way into the tournament that you are just going to knock it out of the park with recruiting and be on your way. I think history shows that you don't build something on short term success.

Look, it sucks that we didn't go to the tournament last year. We deserved it and had the team to possibly make some noise. We put an exciting product out there that everybody enjoyed watching. We dominated the league we are in. I will say, it was fun and it did more to make me want to renew my season tickets than the bad ending did to make me disappointed in the season.

Your opinion of last year can be different from mine but I thought the run me made did more for our recruiting than had we lost 5-10 games more but somehow lucked into the tournament to play a game we are likely the underdog to by a substantial margin.

If you are a good player, would you rather play for a coach who seemingly has control of his program and can put out a dominating product or one that is floating along just to hope to make the NCAA tournament? I think most players would want to play for the coach and program that has had as much long term success as possible.

The goal is to build a program that is consistently winning and that winning will set it up to make the NCAA tournament consistently as well. The players, coaches and staff are more tested and prepared for crunchtime when they expect to win every game rather than a selected few.

Players want to play for a coach and in a system that gets them recognition by winning conference titles and getting to the dance or NIT regularly. They also want to play for a coach who will challenge them and put them in position to win against quality competition.

Our coach aint the guy who can do both.

[zephyr]

Players want to play for a coach and in a system that gets them recognition by winning conference titles and getting to the dance or NIT regularly. They also want to play for a coach who will challenge them and put them in position to win against quality competition.

Our coach aint the guy who can do both.

Well, his tenure up to this point suggests you are likely right. I liked what I saw last year though and hope we improve off of that. I think one of the biggest years in Bobby's time here will come this year in recruiting. We are losing our core of athletic and dynamic players. We have a couple of younger guys that have promise but he will need to really score with either some solid recruits or transfers IMO.

[CajunEXPRESS]

Zephyr, I think you're a great supporter and fan. And as much as it pains me to do this, I will have to disagree with you here. I believe that the ultimate goal for every team in Division 1 College Basketball at the start of the season is to make the NCAA Tournament. I would've sacrificed 5-6 of those 27 wins for a spot on that NCAA Bracket last March. That 2014 team won ~20 games and then got hot at the right time to pull off some huge wins in the conference tournament and put us in the field of 68. They didn't win 27 games nor did they win the regular season conference title. But they will be remembered by this school and our fans for a very long time from now.

I think what causes apathy with some people here is the fact that even though winning the regular season conference title is a nice accomplishment, that's a possible ceiling for the current coaching staff. And if a coach did say "Well, I would rather a regular season conference championship and NIT berth over a NCAA tournament appearance," it furthers that point, and it definitely doesn't get me excited to invest in that program as a supporter. Hopefully, they prove us all wrong starting in November.

The goal is always NCAA tournament trip. Having said that we could be last in the conference say 14/18 and be awful going to the NCAA. That’s not an acceptable season. Acceptable seasons are challenging for regular title, and going deep into the tournament and preferably winning a trip and a win or two in the NCAA.

We can all come up with our own version, but I think I laid out a reasonable expectation.

[ULvictory]

You are thinking of it on a per year basis. Do you want to go to the tournament in 2018 or do you want to build a program? All of the Mid Majors you see in the tournament now on a consistent basis did this by winning championships and recruiting to a coach, system and program focused on winning. They didn't build them by hitting the 5 star lottery every time they went to a random tournament.

I think that's the difference. People think that one year where you may actually have a mediocre year but somehow find your way into the tournament that you are just going to knock it out of the park with recruiting and be on your way. I think history shows that you don't build something on short term success.

Look, it sucks that we didn't go to the tournament last year. We deserved it and had the team to possibly make some noise. We put an exciting product out there that everybody enjoyed watching. We dominated the league we are in. I will say, it was fun and it did more to make me want to renew my season tickets than the bad ending did to make me disappointed in the season.

Your opinion of last year can be different from mine but I thought the run me made did more for our recruiting than had we lost 5-10 games more but somehow lucked into the tournament to play a game we are likely the underdog to by a substantial margin.

If you are a good player, would you rather play for a coach who seemingly has control of his program and can put out a dominating product or one that is floating along just to hope to make the NCAA tournament? I think most players would want to play for the coach and program that has had as much long term success as possible.

The goal is to build a program that is consistently winning and that winning will set it up to make the NCAA tournament consistently as well. The players, coaches and staff are more tested and prepared for crunchtime when they expect to win every game rather than a selected few.

But the question is are we building this program for the future? Or are we going to go back to our normal 15-20 wins and miss out on the tournament? Last year was one to remember for the ages. At the same time, history has told us that we will likely go back to our usual 15-20 wins.

I hope I’m wrong. But living on hope every year becomes tiring.

[zephyr]

But the question is are we building this program for the future? Or are we going to go back to our normal 15-20 wins and miss out on the tournament? Last year was one to remember for the ages. At the same time, history has told us that we will likely go back to our usual 15-20 wins.

I hope I’m wrong. But living on hope every year becomes tiring.

You have to start building sometime and somewhere. I thought last year was a good start. The key is building off of it and getting some better recruiting classes.

[VObserver]

You have to start building sometime and somewhere. I thought last year was a good start. The key is building off of it and getting some better recruiting classes.

I think last year is as good as we will ever get from Marlin; a nice team that has chemistry, beats up on weak opponents and can't beat anyone decent. Marlin recruits good kids with some upside and develops them into better players, but as a game day coach he leaves a lot to be desired. He would be a good assistant coach.

I don't mind if you and others disagree with me, but nearly a decade of mediocre basketball with only two years above .500 against the top 200 RPI tells me all I need to know.

[zephyr]

I think last year is as good as we will ever get from Marlin; a nice team that has chemistry, beats up on weak opponents and can't beat anyone decent. Marlin recruits good kids with some upside and develops them into better players, but as a game day coach he leaves a lot to be desired. He would be a good assistant coach.

I don't mind if you and others disagree with me, but nearly a decade of mediocre basketball with only two years above .500 against the top 200 RPI tells me all I need to know.

I do not disagree with you. I've been about as critical of Marlin as anyone here. I certainly enjoyed last year and would love to see that style of play along with athletes like that every year but I agree that we just don't EVER seem to get any type of signature wins year after year.