|
Post by hc87 on Jan 28, 2017 22:41:34 GMT -5
Holy Cross is not the school it was in the 1950s-1980s....sad. but true. Weaker academically and athletically....it is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Jan 28, 2017 23:46:11 GMT -5
identity crisis? Yes, as regards sports. Not sure, as regards academics. It's a fool's errand to think we can let the tail (sports) wag the dog (the school) as has been the case since the 1930's. Why? Because the college sports world is utterly different than it has been in the past, a world where our sports programs are not comfortable for many reasons--and it's getting more uncomfortable every year. We have a shot at becoming something unique: the academics of a Williams + Catholic + Jesuit + location in the middle of academic-rich New England + excellent athletic facilities + Div II or Div III sports conference(s). No more tail wagging the dog. We are a tiny academy on a hill in Worcester, MA with half the male population we used to have.
|
|
|
Post by Non Alum Dave on Jan 29, 2017 8:08:53 GMT -5
I think having a Man of the Match when you lose is a bit foolish anyway, so why debate over who should have won it.
With 10 scholarship players (and one not 100% healthy), the options for new lineups are extremely limited. But the next time they experience one of the all too frequent droughts, why not throw this lineup out there just to see what happens: Malachi, PB, CLS, Ziggy and JS. Just for 2 minutes, for crying out loud, to see what happens.
I'm not nearly as observant as most of you, but to me, when KC struggles, it seems on his drives to the basket his head is down, and he has no chance of seeing defenders sitting there waiting for him.
Was watching freshman year highlights of AnT. While never being as deft as PB going to the hoop, he used to be able to draw fouls. Not sure what happened with that.
If I treat rebounding like a separate function (like special teams in football), then I rank the priorities in needing improvement as 1) offense, 2) rebounding, and 3) defense.
I don't care what anyone says, I STILL believe the 30 second shot clock is a factor in the struggles of the PO offense. When AU won in Brennan's first year, we we were still using the 35 second clock. They've struggled with the 30 second clock as well. So how do you counteract? To me, you drum in this message: when you get a turnover, RUN and attack! Just my layman's thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jan 29, 2017 9:09:34 GMT -5
I think having a Man of the Match when you lose is a bit foolish anyway, so why debate over who should have won it. With 10 scholarship players (and one not 100% healthy), the options for new lineups are extremely limited. But the next time they experience one of the all too frequent droughts, why not throw this lineup out there just to see what happens: Malachi, PB, CLS, Ziggy and JS. Just for 2 minutes, for crying out loud, to see what happens. I'm not nearly as observant as most of you, but to me, when KC struggles, it seems on his drives to the basket his head is down, and he has no chance of seeing defenders sitting there waiting for him. Was watching freshman year highlights of AnT. While never being as deft as PB going to the hoop, he used to be able to draw fouls. Not sure what happened with that. If I treat rebounding like a separate function (like special teams in football), then I rank the priorities in needing improvement as 1) offense, 2) rebounding, and 3) defense. I don't care what anyone says, I STILL believe the 30 second shot clock is a factor in the struggles of the PO offense. When AU won in Brennan's first year, we we were still using the 35 second clock. They've struggled with the 30 second clock as well. So how do you counteract? To me, you drum in this message: when you get a turnover, RUN and attack! Just my layman's thoughts. I've written before on this board (convincing few other posters) about my belief that AnT had an extraordinary freshman year--and that ability to draw fouls was one of the chief contributors to that belief. His "Free Throw Rate" was 82.3 as s freshman, i.e. 149 free throws/181 field goal attempts= 82.3%. He finished #21 of some 2,000 D-1 players on that important stat as a freshman. In soph-junior-senior seasons he is at about 35%, reducing his contribution to the offense significantly.
|
|
|
Post by possum on Jan 29, 2017 9:28:11 GMT -5
Ant is a square peg in a round hole in this offense. His best attributes are utilized in an up tempo pressing style. Many of his drives early in his career came off steals and he wasn't trying to drive through a set defense. Agree with NAD we should be running off turnovers PB has been doing more of this lately and it's worked out well for him. Don't know what happened to his outside shot last two years but he can't throw the ball in the ocean at this point. From a purely basketball sense he would have been better off transferring to a school that suited his playing style but coming off a major injury maybe that avenue was not available to him.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 29, 2017 9:46:37 GMT -5
I am sorry, but in my mind, AT is disqualified for "Man of the Game" with the egregious turnover on a soft pass to him standing right in front of Carmody and he just wasn't paying attention and missed the pass. He just seems so unfocused sometimes. As for KC, he tries too hard sometimes to make things happen, especially the stupid fouls. Generally, the entire team seems pretty unfocused with the exception of PB. The team is not playing up to their potential and, unfortunately like under MB, we are seeing very little synergy. Right now, the whole is less than the sum of the parts. I haven't had to do it in a while (since MB days) but my new "cheer" for the team is going to be " FOCUS!" (But maybe from where I sit, that might be a distraction ) Time for the 3 team captains to call a team meeting.
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Jan 29, 2017 9:58:14 GMT -5
I think having a Man of the Match when you lose is a bit foolish anyway, so why debate over who should have won it. With 10 scholarship players (and one not 100% healthy), the options for new lineups are extremely limited. But the next time they experience one of the all too frequent droughts, why not throw this lineup out there just to see what happens: Malachi, PB, CLS, Ziggy and JS. Just for 2 minutes, for crying out loud, to see what happens. I'm not nearly as observant as most of you, but to me, when KC struggles, it seems on his drives to the basket his head is down, and he has no chance of seeing defenders sitting there waiting for him. Was watching freshman year highlights of AnT. While never being as deft as PB going to the hoop, he used to be able to draw fouls. Not sure what happened with that. If I treat rebounding like a separate function (like special teams in football), then I rank the priorities in needing improvement as 1) offense, 2) rebounding, and 3) defense. I don't care what anyone says, I STILL believe the 30 second shot clock is a factor in the struggles of the PO offense. When AU won in Brennan's first year, we we were still using the 35 second clock. They've struggled with the 30 second clock as well. So how do you counteract? To me, you drum in this message: when you get a turnover, RUN and attack! Just my layman's thoughts. Well, Princeton doesn't seem to be struggling. They run the offense faster. Probably because they have better players that can do it. We don't. You can say that maybe BC is stubborn and won't use his fit his offense to his players' strengths. Then again, did they do any better with the last guy? Remember a lot of long scoring droughts with him too. Allowing 60 points (and at least 4 of those points were on end-to-end steals, not exactly a defensive issue) should win most ballgames. We should start the reverse of the Man of The Match award. My vote yesterday goes to Floyd. Departed early and deservedly so.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Jan 29, 2017 10:21:37 GMT -5
I am sorry, but in my mind, AT is disqualified for "Man of the Game" with the egregious turnover on a soft pass to him standing right in front of Carmody and he just wasn't paying attention and missed the pass. He just seems so unfocused sometimes. As for KC, he tries too hard sometimes to make things happen, especially the stupid fouls. Generally, the entire team seems pretty unfocused with the exception of PB. The team is not playing up to their potential and, unfortunately like under MB, we are seeing very little synergy. Right now, the whole is less than the sum of the parts. I haven't had to do it in a while (since MB days) but my new "cheer" for the team is going to be " FOCUS!" (But maybe from where I sit, that might be a distraction ) Time for the 3 team captains to call a team meeting. Ant dislocated his finger on that play in the corner or a previous play. He was at end of bench having it worked on by staff. Went back in soon after it was fixed. Without Ant, we lose out. Most unlikely to get Man of Game? Combination of CLS/MZ. Ziggy tends to disappear in games. Difficult watching CLS struggle out there. For what it's worth.
|
|
|
Post by southernsader on Jan 29, 2017 10:33:34 GMT -5
identity crisis? Yes, as regards sports. Not sure, as regards academics. It's a fool's errand to think we can let the tail (sports) wag the dog (the school) as has been the case since the 1930's. Why? Because the college sports world is utterly different than it has been in the past, a world where our sports programs are not comfortable for many reasons--and it's getting more uncomfortable every year. We have a shot at becoming something unique: the academics of a Williams + Catholic + Jesuit + location in the middle of academic-rich New England + excellent athletic facilities + Div II or Div III sports conference(s). No more tail wagging the dog. We are a tiny academy on a hill in Worcester, MA with half the male population we used to have. This +1
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Jan 29, 2017 10:41:37 GMT -5
I think having a Man of the Match when you lose is a bit foolish anyway, so why debate over who should have won it. With 10 scholarship players (and one not 100% healthy), the options for new lineups are extremely limited. But the next time they experience one of the all too frequent droughts, why not throw this lineup out there just to see what happens: Malachi, PB, CLS, Ziggy and JS. Just for 2 minutes, for crying out loud, to see what happens. I'm not nearly as observant as most of you, but to me, when KC struggles, it seems on his drives to the basket his head is down, and he has no chance of seeing defenders sitting there waiting for him. Was watching freshman year highlights of AnT. While never being as deft as PB going to the hoop, he used to be able to draw fouls. Not sure what happened with that. If I treat rebounding like a separate function (like special teams in football), then I rank the priorities in needing improvement as 1) offense, 2) rebounding, and 3) defense. I don't care what anyone says, I STILL believe the 30 second shot clock is a factor in the struggles of the PO offense. When AU won in Brennan's first year, we we were still using the 35 second clock. They've struggled with the 30 second clock as well. So how do you counteract? To me, you drum in this message: when you get a turnover, RUN and attack! Just my layman's thoughts. Well, Princeton doesn't seem to be struggling. They run the offense faster. Probably because they have better players that can do it. We don't. You can say that maybe BC is stubborn and won't use his fit his offense to his players' strengths. Then again, did they do any better with the last guy? Remember a lot of long scoring droughts with him too. Fwiw, here are the average time per offensive possession for three PO teams: Princeton 18.0 seconds American 19.5 seconds Holy Cross 20.2 seconds the true times before shooting on a given offensive possession are actually a bit faster since an offensive possession can be extended by an offensive rebound.
|
|
|
Post by Non Alum Dave on Jan 29, 2017 10:46:31 GMT -5
Not sure about AU, but every player on the Princeton roster was recruited to play in that offense. That has to make at least a smidgen of difference. I also wonder if Princeton has had as many possessions that go close to over 30 seconds as HC.
I know a lot of you get real angry at AnT; I guess I'm a bleeding heart because I feel for him - must be very, very frustrating to struggle when you've proven you can play at this level. This really wasn't that long ago:
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Jan 29, 2017 10:52:54 GMT -5
But the next time they experience one of the all too frequent droughts, why not throw this lineup out there just to see what happens: Malachi, PB, CLS, Ziggy and JS. Just for 2 minutes, for crying out loud, to see what happens. I think the optimal time "to see what happens" has already happened - it was in the OOC, when the games mattered a lot less than they do now. And Carmody chose not to go meaningfully deeper than 6-7. If BU loses tomorrow, we are still very much in the hunt for 4th place - we also have a good shot at finishing 7th, and trying to PIG our way to another miracle in the tournament. Regardless of his interest in shaking things up, I don't think Carmody trusts MZ, CLS, or JS enough to give them meaningful minutes down the conference stretch. He has been completely comfortable, on numerous occasions, giving MZ and CLS "just two minutes" as filler or until they make a mistake - wish that would change. I would love to see Floyd get 20+ minutes the rest of the way. We desperately need his speed, athleticism, and interior presence defensively, and accepting his offensive limitations is a reasonable price to pay, imho - and Husek has only been giving us about 17mpg and 5ppg over the last five games, so wouldn't expect a big scoring drop. A dominant five of MA, KC, PB, RC, and JF (with AT and CLS first off the bench) could be worth trying.
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Jan 29, 2017 11:19:54 GMT -5
If I treat rebounding like a separate function (like special teams in football), then I rank the priorities in needing improvement as 1) offense, 2) rebounding, and 3) defense. Not sure where it should rank in terms of priorities, but . . . Holy Cross, after yesterday's indifference to the boards, is now the worst rebounding team in the country. www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/stat/total-rebounding-percentage
|
|
purple71
Crusader Century Club
Posts: 169
|
Post by purple71 on Jan 29, 2017 11:39:11 GMT -5
identity crisis? Yes, as regards sports. Not sure, as regards academics. It's a fool's errand to think we can let the tail (sports) wag the dog (the school) as has been the case since the 1930's. Why? Because the college sports world is utterly different than it has been in the past, a world where our sports programs are not comfortable for many reasons--and it's getting more uncomfortable every year. We have a shot at becoming something unique: the academics of a Williams + Catholic + Jesuit + location in the middle of academic-rich New England + excellent athletic facilities + Div II or Div III sports conference(s). No more tail wagging the dog. We are a tiny academy on a hill in Worcester, MA with half the male population we used to have. I don't often agree with you but your points here would be difficult to ignore. The college sports world has changed and perhaps we would be better off acknowledging that fact. If we are at Williams/Amherst level academically, why not athletically as well? We are struggling in a very low level D1 league why not drop down to our academic peers? When I go to the Hart Center or watch a game on TV or over the internet I am always struck at the difference in the level of current student interest as opposed to when I was at the Cross. I believe my class was either the last or second to last class to be all male which probably has some influence on student attendance but it is clearly more than that which has changed. Lack of enthusiasm breeds further lack of enthusiasm.
I am a season ticketholder for Siena and I see that probably 85% of the crowd are not students. They played Iona on Friday night here in Albany before a crowd of 5,600 but Iona got off to a quick lead and took the energy out of the house. They have made the town and gown connection because in my generation the school was largely a day hop school whose graduates largely stayed in the area. The Cross simply doesn't have those demographics which is why playing at the Centrum isn't going to work. By way of example, in the mid 80s through mid 90s Albany had a CBA franchise, the Patroons, which initially did very well when it packed a 2500 seat capacity armory every game. It then moved in the early 90s to the new 17,000 seat downtown arena and the 3 to 4000 person crowds simply got lost in a sea of empty seats resulting in a lack of enthusiasm in the building and ultimately, the demise of the franchise (but not before Phil Jackson coached them to a couple of league titles).
If we are, in the words of my new found mentor Sarasota, going to let the tail wag the dog then exit the PL and pursue the MAAC (the A10 being a pipe dream as Fordham found out). However, I concede that such a change would hurt the academic profile of the college and frankly, the academic profile is more important. You must be either fish or fowl and we seem to be in no man's land. I don't think dropping down to the Williams/Amherst level of hoop is going to affect student enthusiasm, alumni enthusiasm perhaps, but not student. There is an old saying, "winning covers a multitude of sins" so I suspect the alumni of my generation will grant absolution to the heresy of dropping down after a successful season or two. As to the alumni of the PL generation, I am not sure they will notice a difference. I also believe the geography of the NESCAC would be more favorable.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 29, 2017 11:43:59 GMT -5
Well, besides the opening shot of you in this video , did you notice how many times he drove and dished off for an easy bucket and an assist? He seems more hellbent to go straight to the basket regardless of how many defenders are in his way now. But maybe you are on to something, NAD. Perhaps he doesn't feel he has the supporting cast he had in the past and has to do it all himself? I hope he doesn't feel that way just because he is a senior.
|
|
|
Post by Non Alum Dave on Jan 29, 2017 11:55:07 GMT -5
A lot of those highlights appear to be plays in transition; don't have as many of those opportunities now. Also, there was one play where he finished through contact for a "and one". Can't remember when he last had one of those.
|
|
|
Post by jflare on Jan 29, 2017 11:58:56 GMT -5
identity crisis? Yes, as regards sports. Not sure, as regards academics. It's a fool's errand to think we can let the tail (sports) wag the dog (the school) as has been the case since the 1930's. Why? Because the college sports world is utterly different than it has been in the past, a world where our sports programs are not comfortable for many reasons--and it's getting more uncomfortable every year. We have a shot at becoming something unique: the academics of a Williams + Catholic + Jesuit + location in the middle of academic-rich New England + excellent athletic facilities + Div II or Div III sports conference(s). No more tail wagging the dog. We are a tiny academy on a hill in Worcester, MA with half the male population we used to have. I don't often agree with you but your points here would be difficult to ignore. The college sports world has changed and perhaps we would be better off acknowledging that fact. If we are at Williams/Amherst level academically, why not athletically as well? We are struggling in a very low level D1 league why not drop down to our academic peers? When I go to the Hart Center or watch a game on TV or over the internet I am always struck at the difference in the level of current student interest as opposed to when I was at the Cross. I believe my class was either the last or second to last class to be all male which probably has some influence on student attendance but it is clearly more than that which has changed. Lack of enthusiasm breeds further lack of enthusiasm.
I am a season ticketholder for Siena and I see that probably 85% of the crowd are not students. They played Iona on Friday night here in Albany before a crowd of 5,600 but Iona got off to a quick lead and took the energy out of the house. They have made the town and gown connection because in my generation the school was largely a day hop school whose graduates largely stayed in the area. The Cross simply doesn't have those demographics which is why playing at the Centrum isn't going to work. By way of example, in the mid 80s through mid 90s Albany had a CBA franchise, the Patroons, which initially did very well when it packed a 2500 seat capacity armory every game. It then moved in the early 90s to the new 17,000 seat downtown arena and the 3 to 4000 person crowds simply got lost in a sea of empty seats resulting in a lack of enthusiasm in the building and ultimately, the demise of the franchise (but not before Phil Jackson coached them to a couple of league titles).
If we are, in the words of my new found mentor Sarasota, going to let the tail wag the dog then exit the PL and pursue the MAAC (the A10 being a pipe dream as Fordham found out). However, I concede that such a change would hurt the academic profile of the college and frankly, the academic profile is more important. You must be either fish or fowl and we seem to be in no man's land. I don't think dropping down to the Williams/Amherst level of hoop is going to affect student enthusiasm, alumni enthusiasm perhaps, but not student. There is an old saying, "winning covers a multitude of sins" so I suspect the alumni of my generation will grant absolution to the heresy of dropping down after a successful season or two. As to the alumni of the PL generation, I am not sure they will notice a difference. I also believe the geography of the NESCAC would be more favorable.
|
|
|
Post by hcnation on Jan 29, 2017 12:13:37 GMT -5
I think having a Man of the Match when you lose is a bit foolish anyway, so why debate over who should have won it. . [ In calling attention to the award after this fiasco of a game, I was indeed mocking it.
|
|
|
Post by jflare on Jan 29, 2017 12:20:44 GMT -5
We have been playing football, basketball and baseball at this level for over 120 years. Throughout that century plus of time there have many many prolonged periods of various types of successes and failures. Don't be caught up in the limited time frames of those successes and failures. We and the Administrators must take a view that extends throughout the history of the College as well as the next 50 to 100 years into the future. It is within that historical framework of what our athletics has meant to our identity that must guide us forward. It would be foolish and quite short sighted to believe that in the next 50 to 100 years, if we stay the course, we will not once again have periods of substantial athletic success at the level of Division 1. The College will be around long after all of us are gone so view the present situation not as an absolute but rather one of the more disappointing periods in a much longer historical athletic perspective that will for sure change.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 29, 2017 12:28:48 GMT -5
I am sorry, but in my mind, AT is disqualified for "Man of the Game" with the egregious turnover on a soft pass to him standing right in front of Carmody and he just wasn't paying attention and missed the pass. He just seems so unfocused sometimes. As for KC, he tries too hard sometimes to make things happen, especially the stupid fouls. Generally, the entire team seems pretty unfocused with the exception of PB. The team is not playing up to their potential and, unfortunately like under MB, we are seeing very little synergy. Right now, the whole is less than the sum of the parts. With one very key part hobbled, the sum does not add up to a whole lot.
|
|
|
Post by hcnation on Jan 29, 2017 12:57:59 GMT -5
A lot of those highlights appear to be plays in transition; don't have as many of those opportunities now. Also, there was one play where he finished through contact for a "and one". Can't remember when he last had one of those. Also.Freshman year -fouls were called more often on his drives when he fell tto the floor,and I think refs smarten up after witnessing so many out of control drives and misses
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jan 29, 2017 13:18:43 GMT -5
identity crisis? Yes, as regards sports. Not sure, as regards academics. It's a fool's errand to think we can let the tail (sports) wag the dog (the school) as has been the case since the 1930's. Why? Because the college sports world is utterly different than it has been in the past, a world where our sports programs are not comfortable for many reasons--and it's getting more uncomfortable every year. We have a shot at becoming something unique: the academics of a Williams + Catholic + Jesuit + location in the middle of academic-rich New England + excellent athletic facilities + Div II or Div III sports conference(s). No more tail wagging the dog. We are a tiny academy on a hill in Worcester, MA with half the male population we used to have. Why can't we have the academics of a Williams + Catholic + Jesuit + location in the middle of academic-rich New England + excellent athletic facilities + COMPETITIVE DIVISION I SPORTS?? And this isn't high school -- male population has very little if anything to do with the competitiveness of our basketball, football and hockey programs where the athletes are being recruited nationally and internationally. It's not like these are walk-on teams here like swimming, golf. track and tennis (which we could recruit for but choose not to have the budget to do so).
|
|
|
Post by beaven302 on Jan 29, 2017 13:50:18 GMT -5
Holy Cross is not the school it was in the 1950s-1980s....sad. but true. Weaker academically and athletically....it is what it is. How can you possibly state with any certainly that HC is academically weaker than it was between the 1950s and the 1980s??? Is the faculty less qualified and/or poorer teachers? Is the curriculum of lower quality? Are the students less qualified and/or take their studies less seriously? Unless a person has intimate knowledge of what the College was like in former years and what actually goes on there today, an opinion would be worthless. I went to HC in the mid-'60s and the only thing that I could say with certainty about the school during the '50s was that the rules were stricter because in my first year or two, I had a taste of the old disciplinary regime before it started to crumble.
|
|
|
Post by hc87 on Jan 29, 2017 14:01:36 GMT -5
Holy Cross is not the school it was in the 1950s-1980s....sad. but true. Weaker academically and athletically....it is what it is. How can you possibly state with any certainly that HC is academically weaker than it was between the 1950s and the 1980s??? Is the faculty less qualified and/or poorer teachers? Is the curriculum of lower quality? Are the students less qualified and/or take their studies less seriously? Unless a person has intimate knowledge of what the College was like in former years and what actually goes on there today, an opinion would be worthless. I went to HC in the mid-'60s and the only thing that I could say with certainty about the school during the '50s was that the rules were stricter because in my first year or two, I had a taste of the old disciplinary regime before it started to crumble. Poorly phrased on my part. Holy Cross is not seen as good a school as it was 30 years ago by high school students, guidance counselors etc or from what I've heard (admittedly anecdotally) seen as strong as it once was by med/law/grad schools. Will leaving the PL change that dramatically? Probably not...but I truly believe that since leaving the entertainment biz, the school has fallen to a degree in people's perception of the school.
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Jan 29, 2017 17:50:07 GMT -5
jflare- Wishful thinking. Head-in-the-sand. You offer no reason to support the likelihood of your dream coming true.
Also, my allusion to men making only half of HC's student population wasn't based on the fact you can still populate teams. It is based on the fact that with all-men you get the jock atmosphere that was so prevalent in the mid-60's. I think we ignore the effects of half the students being women. It's about today's culture on the campus. P.S. I think today's gender diverse culture at HC may be a better thing than its jock past. In my day on Wheeler III, no telephones, no cars, no TVs, no carpets and ABSOLUTELY NO GIRLS, the maid who used to make up our beds every day (very plain looking woman) started to look pretty good after a while. Most of us were crypto altar boys from Catholic all-boys high schools. Yes, we were pathetic. We didn't know how to handle booze and, for sure, we didn't know how to handle GIRLS. P.S.s. I met my future wife at The Cattle Call. I'm guessing it doesn't exist today at HC (no need for it), but for sure if it did it wouldn't be called that!
|
|