Over/under 12 total wins next season

Anyone have a list of the teams we play next year?

Anyone have a list of the teams we play next year?

See my post on the last page, All games are mentioned except @Syracuse and the 3 Atlantis since we don't know what those are yet

18 wins.  Next year there will quality depth at every position, particularly guard.  There will be ups and downs, a few inexcusable losses and also great wins.  Freundenberg will surprise.  I see NIT.

My early guess, 7 OOC wins, 5 Big East

Quote from: Marco Baldi on June 09, 2016, 12:56:06 PM

For those saying 15 wins.

Who are the in conference wins coming against?

We'll take one or both from DePaul, then we'll be absolutely no less than 40-45% chance in the home games against the other BE teams not named Villanova or Xavier. We'd also have a realistic chance to steal 1 or 2 non-DePaul road games.

The 11-12 team won 13 games against a tougher schedule, and that team was worse than the team we'll have next year. Good thing you don't set lines in Vegas or they'd be broke.

Tha Kid is right. 14.5 is probably what the actual line would be.

The 11-12 team had Harkless and Harrison. We don't know if we'll have players of that caliber. Can't say that this team is better than that one. Ponds could average 19 a game. He could average 4. We don't know how he'll adjust to the BE.

Quote from: goredmen on June 09, 2016, 01:22:54 PM

Quote from: Marco Baldi on June 09, 2016, 12:56:06 PM

For those saying 15 wins.

Who are the in conference wins coming against?

We'll take one or both from DePaul, then we'll be absolutely no less than 40-45% chance in the home games against the other BE teams not named Villanova or Xavier. We'd also have a realistic chance to steal 1 or 2 non-DePaul road games.

The 11-12 team won 13 games against a tougher schedule, and that team was worse than the team we'll have next year. Good thing you don't set lines in Vegas or they'd be broke.

Tha Kid is right. 14.5 is probably what the actual line would be.

The 11-12 team had Harkless and Harrison. We don't know if we'll have players of that caliber. Can't say that this team is better than that one. Ponds could average 19 a game. He could average 4. We don't know how he'll adjust to the BE.

Yes, all those guys were freshmen and they had no true bigs other than Gods Gift, no true PG and zero depth. Not one player of any experience whatsoever on that team. They were bad. Next year's team should be a little better than that team simply because there is a frontcourt and a PG. Plus its a more watered down conference and we should get 2-3 more wins than that team did.

This thread isn't very optimistic. They won 8 games last year with no point guard. Winning 12 with a point guard and added talent shouldn't be too much to ask. You never know, but I have a feeling that Ponds and LoVett are going to surprise people. If I'm right, and they do, the team should be on the bubble.

I expect to double last year's total==so over

Quote from: Poison on June 09, 2016, 10:07:18 PM

Quote from: goredmen on June 09, 2016, 01:22:54 PM

Quote from: Marco Baldi on June 09, 2016, 12:56:06 PM

For those saying 15 wins.

Who are the in conference wins coming against?

We'll take one or both from DePaul, then we'll be absolutely no less than 40-45% chance in the home games against the other BE teams not named Villanova or Xavier. We'd also have a realistic chance to steal 1 or 2 non-DePaul road games.

The 11-12 team won 13 games against a tougher schedule, and that team was worse than the team we'll have next year. Good thing you don't set lines in Vegas or they'd be broke.

Tha Kid is right. 14.5 is probably what the actual line would be.

The 11-12 team had Harkless and Harrison. We don't know if we'll have players of that caliber. Can't say that this team is better than that one. Ponds could average 19 a game. He could average 4. We don't know how he'll adjust to the BE.

Yes, all those guys were freshmen and they had no true bigs other than Gods Gift, no true PG and zero depth. Not one player of any experience whatsoever on that team. They were bad. Next year's team should be a little better than that team simply because there is a frontcourt and a PG. Plus its a more watered down conference and we should get 2-3 more wins than that team did.

I don't know if we have a front court player player better than Harkless. Yakwe is promising. Who else? Harkless, Gift, Garrett and Pointer were raw, but do we really have something better?

Quote from: goredmen on June 09, 2016, 10:20:35 PM

Quote from: Poison on June 09, 2016, 10:07:18 PM

Quote from: goredmen on June 09, 2016, 01:22:54 PM

Quote from: Marco Baldi on June 09, 2016, 12:56:06 PM

For those saying 15 wins.

Who are the in conference wins coming against?

We'll take one or both from DePaul, then we'll be absolutely no less than 40-45% chance in the home games against the other BE teams not named Villanova or Xavier. We'd also have a realistic chance to steal 1 or 2 non-DePaul road games.

The 11-12 team won 13 games against a tougher schedule, and that team was worse than the team we'll have next year. Good thing you don't set lines in Vegas or they'd be broke.

Tha Kid is right. 14.5 is probably what the actual line would be.

The 11-12 team had Harkless and Harrison. We don't know if we'll have players of that caliber. Can't say that this team is better than that one. Ponds could average 19 a game. He could average 4. We don't know how he'll adjust to the BE.

Yes, all those guys were freshmen and they had no true bigs other than Gods Gift, no true PG and zero depth. Not one player of any experience whatsoever on that team. They were bad. Next year's team should be a little better than that team simply because there is a frontcourt and a PG. Plus its a more watered down conference and we should get 2-3 more wins than that team did.

I don't know if we have a front court player player better than Harkless. Yakwe is promising. Who else? Harkless, Gift, Garrett and Pointer were raw, but do we really have something better?

Yakwe and Sima should make huge jumps this year. Also have Owens off the bench which gives us 3 true bigs, 2 more than we had in that 11-12 season and all 3 should be better than Gift was.

Quote from: Poison on June 09, 2016, 10:42:56 PM

Quote from: goredmen on June 09, 2016, 10:20:35 PM

Quote from: Poison on June 09, 2016, 10:07:18 PM

Quote from: goredmen on June 09, 2016, 01:22:54 PM

Quote from: Marco Baldi on June 09, 2016, 12:56:06 PM

For those saying 15 wins.

Who are the in conference wins coming against?

We'll take one or both from DePaul, then we'll be absolutely no less than 40-45% chance in the home games against the other BE teams not named Villanova or Xavier. We'd also have a realistic chance to steal 1 or 2 non-DePaul road games.

The 11-12 team won 13 games against a tougher schedule, and that team was worse than the team we'll have next year. Good thing you don't set lines in Vegas or they'd be broke.

Tha Kid is right. 14.5 is probably what the actual line would be.

The 11-12 team had Harkless and Harrison. We don't know if we'll have players of that caliber. Can't say that this team is better than that one. Ponds could average 19 a game. He could average 4. We don't know how he'll adjust to the BE.

Yes, all those guys were freshmen and they had no true bigs other than Gods Gift, no true PG and zero depth. Not one player of any experience whatsoever on that team. They were bad. Next year's team should be a little better than that team simply because there is a frontcourt and a PG. Plus its a more watered down conference and we should get 2-3 more wins than that team did.

I don't know if we have a front court player player better than Harkless. Yakwe is promising. Who else? Harkless, Gift, Garrett and Pointer were raw, but do we really have something better?

Yakwe and Sima should make huge jumps this year. Also have Owens off the bench which gives us 3 true bigs, 2 more than we had in that 11-12 season and all 3 should be better than Gift was.

If we're going to really contend for any post season bid, Sima or Owens really need to be ready for the BE. Perhaps Zendon can teach Sima how to rebound. Or Maybe Owens can.

Quote from: goredmen on June 09, 2016, 10:53:14 PM

Quote from: Poison on June 09, 2016, 10:42:56 PM

Quote from: goredmen on June 09, 2016, 10:20:35 PM

Quote from: Poison on June 09, 2016, 10:07:18 PM

Quote from: goredmen on June 09, 2016, 01:22:54 PM

Quote from: Marco Baldi on June 09, 2016, 12:56:06 PM

For those saying 15 wins.

Who are the in conference wins coming against?

We'll take one or both from DePaul, then we'll be absolutely no less than 40-45% chance in the home games against the other BE teams not named Villanova or Xavier. We'd also have a realistic chance to steal 1 or 2 non-DePaul road games.

The 11-12 team won 13 games against a tougher schedule, and that team was worse than the team we'll have next year. Good thing you don't set lines in Vegas or they'd be broke.

Tha Kid is right. 14.5 is probably what the actual line would be.

The 11-12 team had Harkless and Harrison. We don't know if we'll have players of that caliber. Can't say that this team is better than that one. Ponds could average 19 a game. He could average 4. We don't know how he'll adjust to the BE.

Yes, all those guys were freshmen and they had no true bigs other than Gods Gift, no true PG and zero depth. Not one player of any experience whatsoever on that team. They were bad. Next year's team should be a little better than that team simply because there is a frontcourt and a PG. Plus its a more watered down conference and we should get 2-3 more wins than that team did.

I don't know if we have a front court player player better than Harkless. Yakwe is promising. Who else? Harkless, Gift, Garrett and Pointer were raw, but do we really have something better?

Yakwe and Sima should make huge jumps this year. Also have Owens off the bench which gives us 3 true bigs, 2 more than we had in that 11-12 season and all 3 should be better than Gift was.

If we're going to really contend for any post season bid, Sima or Owens really need to be ready for the BE. Perhaps Zendon can teach Sima how to rebound. Or Maybe Owens can.

I think NIT is our ceiling even if a few things break right. My point was that Baldi's original O/U of 12 is way too law as this team should win a couple more games than that 11/12 team

Quote from: Poison on June 09, 2016, 11:28:44 PM

Quote from: goredmen on June 09, 2016, 10:53:14 PM

Quote from: Poison on June 09, 2016, 10:42:56 PM

Quote from: goredmen on June 09, 2016, 10:20:35 PM

Quote from: Poison on June 09, 2016, 10:07:18 PM

Quote from: goredmen on June 09, 2016, 01:22:54 PM

Quote from: Marco Baldi on June 09, 2016, 12:56:06 PM

For those saying 15 wins.

Who are the in conference wins coming against?

We'll take one or both from DePaul, then we'll be absolutely no less than 40-45% chance in the home games against the other BE teams not named Villanova or Xavier. We'd also have a realistic chance to steal 1 or 2 non-DePaul road games.

The 11-12 team won 13 games against a tougher schedule, and that team was worse than the team we'll have next year. Good thing you don't set lines in Vegas or they'd be broke.

Tha Kid is right. 14.5 is probably what the actual line would be.

The 11-12 team had Harkless and Harrison. We don't know if we'll have players of that caliber. Can't say that this team is better than that one. Ponds could average 19 a game. He could average 4. We don't know how he'll adjust to the BE.

Yes, all those guys were freshmen and they had no true bigs other than Gods Gift, no true PG and zero depth. Not one player of any experience whatsoever on that team. They were bad. Next year's team should be a little better than that team simply because there is a frontcourt and a PG. Plus its a more watered down conference and we should get 2-3 more wins than that team did.

I don't know if we have a front court player player better than Harkless. Yakwe is promising. Who else? Harkless, Gift, Garrett and Pointer were raw, but do we really have something better?

Yakwe and Sima should make huge jumps this year. Also have Owens off the bench which gives us 3 true bigs, 2 more than we had in that 11-12 season and all 3 should be better than Gift was.

If we're going to really contend for any post season bid, Sima or Owens really need to be ready for the BE. Perhaps Zendon can teach Sima how to rebound. Or Maybe Owens can.

I think NIT is our ceiling even if a few things break right. My point was that Baldi's original O/U of 12 is way too law as this team should win a couple more games than that 11/12 team

On paper, it seems like we could. But we also have to see how the staff comes together too. With such a lousy team last year, we really couldn't see very much coaching. I'm in the camp that the team should have an experienced X and O guy, but that doesn't mean that Richmond couldn't be great at that from day one. Some former players just are.

Richmond has never called a timeout, made a sub, prepared a team for a game, led a film session, ran a practice, and plenty of other things coaches at this level had to do thousands of times before they got the level of The big east.

Richmond has never called a timeout, made a sub, prepared a team for a game, led a film session, ran a practice, and plenty of other things coaches at this level had to do thousands of times before they got the level of The big east.

By that logic there are thousands of high school coaches with career losing records who are more qualified to coach in the Big East than is HOF er Mitch Richmond, who played for inter alia Lon Kruger, Dick Motta, Don Nelson, Phil Jackson, John Thompson, and Lenny Wilkins. Possible he learned something about basketball during that time? No, because he never cut his teeth calling a time out in a CYO game.

Once again, coaching is not hard. If it was, fewer complete and utter nice persons would be successful at it.

Quote from: TONYD3 on June 10, 2016, 09:01:09 AM

Richmond has never called a timeout, made a sub, prepared a team for a game, led a film session, ran a practice, and plenty of other things coaches at this level had to do thousands of times before they got the level of The big east.

By that logic there are thousands of high school coaches with career losing records who are more qualified to coach in the Big East than is HOF er Mitch Richmond, who played for inter alia Lon Kruger, Dick Motta, Don Nelson, Phil Jackson, John Thompson, and Lenny Wilkins. Possible he learned something about basketball during that time? No, because he never cut his teeth calling a time out in a CYO game.

Once again, coaching is not hard. If it was, fewer complete and utter nice persons would be successful at it.

Many HS coaches are more qualified to coach then Mitch Richmond. If he was the 4Th coach fine and he was learning, I would be happy he was here. At St. John's he would be the top assistant coach. Notre dame might hire Joe Montana to be a QB coach, but they certainly wouldn't hire him to be their offensive coordinator.  Understanding a sport is not the same thing as being able to teach it. Coaching is hard and it is very competitive. I bet Richmond can beat the butler coaches one an one. But I also believe they will make him and us look silly, not because of any CYO game, but because they are professional coaches who have spent their lives teaching and coaching basketball.

Coaching is hard

No, it isn't. Neurosurgery is hard. String theory is hard. Being a glorified gym teacher is not.

Quote from: TONYD3 on June 10, 2016, 09:01:09 AM

Richmond has never called a timeout, made a sub, prepared a team for a game, led a film session, ran a practice, and plenty of other things coaches at this level had to do thousands of times before they got the level of The big east.

By that logic there are thousands of high school coaches with career losing records who are more qualified to coach in the Big East than is HOF er Mitch Richmond, who played for inter alia Lon Kruger, Dick Motta, Don Nelson, Phil Jackson, John Thompson, and Lenny Wilkins. Possible he learned something about basketball during that time? No, because he never cut his teeth calling a time out in a CYO game.

Once again, coaching is not hard. If it was, fewer complete and utter nice persons would be successful at it.

I am not saying I disagree with you but I always wondered if it is true that by playing for good coaches it helps you become a smarter player if you play for a terrible coach does it make you dumber? Like after playing for Norm for four years did his players forget how to dribble and not know what a basketball was?

Richmond has never called a timeout, made a sub, prepared a team for a game, led a film session, ran a practice, and plenty of other things coaches at this level had to do thousands of times before they got the level of The big east.

Mich Richmond is a Hall of Famer.  If he somehow made the f'ing Hall of Fame and never thought on the bench OR on the court hey "Coach should call a T now" or hey "we should sub him in" or hey, I f'ing remember how my coaches PREPARED FOR GAMES AND RAN FILM SESSIONS etc. etc etc. then he would have ZERO interest in being a coach.

This is just pure absurdity.  I'd be concerned more about the grind of recruiting and developing other players than stuff that requires basic basketball intuition for a HOFer...let's also remember he is the assistant, not the head coach.  And there are two others.  He can be brought along at a proper pace, but I have a feeling he will understand how to call time outs, make subs, and assist in the running of practices and film sessions.  He's only done it and seen it done a trillion times.

Quote from: TONYD3 on June 10, 2016, 09:38:10 AM

Coaching is hard

No, it isn't. Neurosurgery is hard. String theory is hard. Being a glorified gym teacher is not.

Exactly.  Let's remember Basket Weaving major Patrick Ewing is considered to be an excellent assistant coach and has been considered for head coaching jobs.  You dont need to be a brainiac in life as long as you know basketball and can communicate that well to your players.