If Lovett misses rest of season or significant time......

I am going option 1. But option 3 will always be in play 

Option 1 is fair.

Do sense that CM's staff will change a bit though.

Option 1 is fair.

Do sense that CM's staff will change a bit though.

No Lovett and we are looking at 14 or 15 wins IMO. Could get ugly round here.

I think it just means they have to take a bigger leap next year for me.  I would have been OK with a NIT this year followed by NCAA next year especially with the recruiting class they have put together.  If we fail to make NIT due to injury then I'm OK with that but still expect NCAA next year.

Option 1 is fair.

Do sense that CM's staff will change a bit though.

From your lips to God's ears. They need a real staff, excluding Matt who does his job. The rest of them are romper room.

Quote from: paultzman on January 03, 2018, 12:52:23 PM

Option 1 is fair.

Do sense that CM's staff will change a bit though.

From your lips to God's ears. They need a real staff, excluding Matt who does his job. The rest of them are romper room.

Find it funny that Mullin gets criticized but his top/ only recruiter seems to constantly get a pass when the lack of eligible bodies has been the problem this year?

It's not just LoVett that the team is missing. There's no depth. No one to come in off the bench and score some points. We had one too many players transfer out. That's the staff's biggest mistake so far. However, the program does seem to be headed in the right direction. Owens, Yakwe and even Alibegovic have improved. But we need more from them. The BE is really tough if Depaul is putting up a fight in back to back games. No gimme on Saturday.

Also, let's not forget that there is a lot of time left in the season. The real season has just started, and the committee knows that we're not at full strength, but we've been strong overall when we have been. Just like they killed us with the 6 seed when DJ got hurt, they can judge us when we have LoVett and Ponds to go with an improving an Clark, Owens, Simon and Yakwe.

Quote from: Johnny23 on January 03, 2018, 02:25:36 PM

Quote from: paultzman on January 03, 2018, 12:52:23 PM

Option 1 is fair.

Do sense that CM's staff will change a bit though.

From your lips to God's ears. They need a real staff, excluding Matt who does his job. The rest of them are romper room.

Find it funny that Mullin gets criticized but his top/ only recruiter seems to constantly get a pass when the lack of eligible bodies has been the problem this year?

Have you seen what's coming in next year? Recruiting isn't the issue now. Matt's fine.

Now have you seen the in-game coaching and adjustments? My point exactly.

Exactly what in game moves and coaching genius was going to get us closer than 5 points to Seton Hall with no LoVett and Ponds? Seems to me that staff did an excellent job in playing with what we had.

Quote from: we are sju on January 03, 2018, 02:52:58 PM

Quote from: Johnny23 on January 03, 2018, 02:25:36 PM

Quote from: paultzman on January 03, 2018, 12:52:23 PM

Option 1 is fair.

Do sense that CM's staff will change a bit though.

From your lips to God's ears. They need a real staff, excluding Matt who does his job. The rest of them are romper room.

Find it funny that Mullin gets criticized but his top/ only recruiter seems to constantly get a pass when the lack of eligible bodies has been the problem this year?

Have you seen what's coming in next year? Recruiting isn't the issue now. Matt's fine.

Now have you seen the in-game coaching and adjustments? My point exactly.

Other than the one game w/o Lovett where Ponds was hurt and or got frustrated and team kind of quit and stopped guarding I have not had a problem with the coaching this year. Great for next year but the depth problem is happening this year. Bad roster management. I guess that ultimately falls on Mullin but that is also Matt's primary area.

Quote from: Johnny23 on January 03, 2018, 03:06:22 PM

Quote from: we are sju on January 03, 2018, 02:52:58 PM

Quote from: Johnny23 on January 03, 2018, 02:25:36 PM

Quote from: paultzman on January 03, 2018, 12:52:23 PM

Option 1 is fair.

Do sense that CM's staff will change a bit though.

From your lips to God's ears. They need a real staff, excluding Matt who does his job. The rest of them are romper room.

Find it funny that Mullin gets criticized but his top/ only recruiter seems to constantly get a pass when the lack of eligible bodies has been the problem this year?

Have you seen what's coming in next year? Recruiting isn't the issue now. Matt's fine.

Now have you seen the in-game coaching and adjustments? My point exactly.

Other than the one game w/o Lovett where Ponds was hurt and or got frustrated and team kind of quit and stopped guarding I have not had a problem with the coaching this year. Great for next year but the depth problem is happening this year. Bad roster management. I guess that ultimately falls on Mullin but that is also Matt's primary area.

The thing is you can't blame Matt because he is literally the only recruiter on the staff. Of 351 division 1 teams I'd guess we are the only one where 95% of the recruiting falls on one guy. Mullin should have hired another recruiter or a hybrid recuriter/X's and O's guy when Slice was let go.

Quote from: paultzman on January 03, 2018, 12:52:23 PM

Option 1 is fair.

Do sense that CM's staff will change a bit though.

From your lips to God's ears. They need a real staff, excluding Matt who does his job. The rest of them are romper room.

What exactly has the staff (who I am not massive fan of) done wrong..?

The biggest issue from last year was the defense and it's massively improved year over year.

They were right there with Providence and then Ponds got hurt and they played a Top 20 team with out their two leading scorers and lost by 5pts...

I think the year has been a massive success so far considering the circumstances...

Quote from: Johnny23 on January 03, 2018, 02:25:36 PM

Quote from: paultzman on January 03, 2018, 12:52:23 PM

Option 1 is fair.

Do sense that CM's staff will change a bit though.

From your lips to God's ears. They need a real staff, excluding Matt who does his job. The rest of them are romper room.

I think the year has been a massive success so far considering the circumstances...

Massive success so far is a little crazy. This team still hasn't beaten anybody better or even on the same level as them. I don't think it's been a failure or disaster by any stretch but also not a massive success when all 10 wins were over teams that are moderately to significantly worse than us.

Massive success so far is a little crazy. This team still hasn't beaten anybody better or even on the same level as them. I don't think it's been a failure or disaster by any stretch but also not a massive success when all 10 wins were over teams that are moderately to significantly worse than us.

It'd be difficult under the best of circumstances to beat "anybody better" wouldn't it? By definition the "better" team beats the worser team most of the time, that's why they're "better." Of the four losses which did you expect to win? Missouri?  I'll concede that as a winnable game that they lost. The others no. ASU is in the top ten, SH on the road, Providence without ML. The difference this year is that they've won the games they were expected to win, they've beaten as you describe them the teams that are "worse than us." That hasn't been the case for any number of years.

Quote from: goredmen on January 03, 2018, 04:31:07 PM

Massive success so far is a little crazy. This team still hasn't beaten anybody better or even on the same level as them. I don't think it's been a failure or disaster by any stretch but also not a massive success when all 10 wins were over teams that are moderately to significantly worse than us.

It'd be difficult under the best of circumstances to beat "anybody better" wouldn't it? By definition the "better" team beats the worser team most of the time, that's why they're "better." Of the four losses which did you expect to win? Missouri?  I'll concede that as a winnable game that they lost. The others no. ASU is in the top ten, SH on the road, Providence without ML. The difference this year is that they've won the games they were expected to win, they've beaten as you describe them the teams that are "worse than us." That hasn't been the case for any number of years.

I think you just disagree with me just for the hell of it at this point because I think we generally agree on most things with some minor differences.

Yes, we have failed to consistently beat the teams we are better than in year's past, but just because we have done that this year doesn't make the season a "massive success". If that is standard we are going by then we may as well go to the NEC or MAAC as we will never actually be good.

So far we've played two teams better than us. Arizona State and Seton Hall. Lost both as expected. Nothing wrong with that. Some would argue that competing with SHU for 40 minutes would be considered a success. Fine, I'm not one for moral victories and could also point out that the fact we let UCF hang around for 40 minutes is a failure to counter that point.

We've played 2 teams on our level, Missouri and Providence. One neutral and one at home. Lost both of them.

So 0-2 vs teams better than us, and 0-2 vs teams on our level. That is not a massive success.

However, the fact that we have actually beat the 10 teams worse than us does count for something and would be the reason I would equally disagree with somebody should they suggest the season has been a massive failure so far.

Come on goredmen don't you know by now that only other teams are allowed to pull an occasional upset. We can never expect St. John's to ever spring an upset.as it is not in our DNA.

Quote from: Foad on January 03, 2018, 04:55:08 PM

Quote from: goredmen on January 03, 2018, 04:31:07 PM

Massive success so far is a little crazy. This team still hasn't beaten anybody better or even on the same level as them. I don't think it's been a failure or disaster by any stretch but also not a massive success when all 10 wins were over teams that are moderately to significantly worse than us.

It'd be difficult under the best of circumstances to beat "anybody better" wouldn't it? By definition the "better" team beats the worser team most of the time, that's why they're "better." Of the four losses which did you expect to win? Missouri?  I'll concede that as a winnable game that they lost. The others no. ASU is in the top ten, SH on the road, Providence without ML. The difference this year is that they've won the games they were expected to win, they've beaten as you describe them the teams that are "worse than us." That hasn't been the case for any number of years.

I think you just disagree with me just for the hell of it at this point because I think we generally agree on most things with some minor differences.

Yes, we have failed to consistently beat the teams we are better than in year's past, but just because we have done that this year doesn't make the season a "massive success". If that is standard we are going by then we may as well go to the NEC or MAAC as we will never actually be good.

So far we've played two teams better than us. Arizona State and Seton Hall. Lost both as expected. Nothing wrong with that. Some would argue that competing with SHU for 40 minutes would be considered a success. Fine, I'm not one for moral victories and could also point out that the fact we let UCF hang around for 40 minutes is a failure to counter that point.

We've played 2 teams on our level, Missouri and Providence. One neutral and one at home. Lost both of them.

So 0-2 vs teams better than us, and 0-2 vs teams on our level. That is not a massive success.

However, the fact that we have actually beat the 10 teams worse than us does count for something and would be the reason I would equally disagree with somebody should they suggest the season has been a massive failure so far.

Oregon State, Nebraska, St.Joseph’s and UCF have the potential to be quality wins.

If Lovett is not playing or practicing, why is he in Omaha if he is in fact there? Shouldn't he be soaking his ailing knee?

Would someone explain the hardship injury transfer waiver rule?

Quote from: Johnny23 on January 03, 2018, 02:25:36 PM

Quote from: paultzman on January 03, 2018, 12:52:23 PM

Option 1 is fair.

Do sense that CM's staff will change a bit though.

From your lips to God's ears. They need a real staff, excluding Matt who does his job. The rest of them are romper room.

Find it funny that Mullin gets criticized but his top/ only recruiter seems to constantly get a pass when the lack of eligible bodies has been the problem this year?

The head coach still takes the blame, as it's the staff he hired.  The head coach has to take some initiative, too. 

As, Johnny23 stated, we have a good class coming in....  Thanks, largely to Matt A.  Frankly, I also don't have much of an issue with recruiting.  I'm no fan of having two transfers sitting out, but recruiting has been sound. 

My concerns lie with Johnny23's.