First Win


#1

Im interested to see what you guys think…


#2

Its at home against Northwestern, if anybody. If not, I’m guessing 0-18 with a few more “close games” that result in losses. Maybe we should judge ED off of how many close games he coaches this team to! :wink:


#3

0-18, as painful as it’d be, might be the best outcome, at least for a new coach. This offense is “give the ball to Battle.” Brooks and Jones can possibly help inside, but more than half the time receive the ball at the arc, and offer no help there. Ever seen Shaq receive the ball at the arc? You see Ott receive the ball at the arc today? It’s laughable. All he can do is hand it off. What kind of O is this? What’s the point of this?


#4

Were 18-6 if you consider a win a “win” and a single digit loss a “win.” That has to count for something in the PSU admin’s eyes right? :wink:


#5

Kid, you’ve harped on this all season but it has not been more evident than today. I honestly don’t think we even tried to post up at all. So many of our offensive sets start with about 12 seconds left on the shot clock…and by set, I mean Talor comes back and gets the ball 35 feet from the basket and tries to make somthing happen. Our guys don’t actually run off screens. They run past them. The thing I struggle w/ is whether or not this falls on the coach or the quality of players.

On topic…0-18


#6

0-18. This one man show can’t do it all alone. Sad part is Ed will be back next year!!! :’( :’(


#7
[quote="kidcoyote, post:3, topic:837"]0-18, as painful as it'd be, might be the best outcome, at least for a new coach. This offense is "give the ball to Battle." Brooks and Jones can possibly help inside, but more than half the time receive the ball at the arc, and offer no help there. Ever seen Shaq receive the ball at the arc? You see Ott receive the ball at the arc today? It's laughable. All he can do is hand it off. What kind of O is this? What's the point of this?[/quote]

Kid, you’ve harped on this all season but it has not been more evident than today. I honestly don’t think we even tried to post up at all. So many of our offensive sets start with about 12 seconds left on the shot clock…and by set, I mean Talor comes back and gets the ball 35 feet from the basket and tries to make somthing happen. Our guys don’t actually run off screens. They run past them. The thing I struggle w/ is whether or not this falls on the coach or the quality of players.

On topic…0-18


Either way-he recruited them

#8

Kid, you’ve harped on this all season but it has not been more evident than today. I honestly don’t think we even tried to post up at all. So many of our offensive sets start with about 12 seconds left on the shot clock…and by set, I mean Talor comes back and gets the ball 35 feet from the basket and tries to make somthing happen. Our guys don’t actually run off screens. They run past them. The thing I struggle w/ is whether or not this falls on the coach or the quality of players.
On topic…0-18
[/quote]

Not that it matters but both have a lot to do with the poor results to date. Ed can’t recruit elite high school players. What elite BB highschooler in their right mind would come here? Ok, Taylor’s brother but who else? Ed is one of the worst coaches I have ever seen on the PSU sidelines. And I thought Dunn was bad. Incoming recruits have got to wonder if Ed will teach them anything. Sure he won the NIT last year but that was after it took all season for the players to finally get in sync, Battle and the seniors stepped up and everyone played like they had a unified goal to succeed. Seeing them this year it’s hard to believe Ed had a lot to do with it except stay with the seniors and be smart enough to go with the flow. These days it is hard to watch state play. They are disorganized, lack fundamentals, usually get beat down court and play poor defense. How does this happen with a good group of returning players and a reasonable incoming freshmen class? Did there guys just forget how to play after they won the NIT last year? NO, you have to think it is just incredibly poor coaching. Interestingly it looks like they have talent, maybe not enough to stay with the very best but enough to be competitive. With a little coaching this team might not be all that bad


#9

[quote=“rebcalale, post:8, topic:837”]Kid, you’ve harped on this all season but it has not been more evident than today. I honestly don’t think we even tried to post up at all. So many of our offensive sets start with about 12 seconds left on the shot clock…and by set, I mean Talor comes back and gets the ball 35 feet from the basket and tries to make somthing happen. Our guys don’t actually run off screens. They run past them. The thing I struggle w/ is whether or not this falls on the coach or the quality of players.
On topic…0-18[/quote]

Not that it matters but both have a lot to do with the poor results to date. Ed can’t recruit elite high school players. What elite BB highschooler in their right mind would come here? Ok, Taylor’s brother but who else? Ed is one of the worst coaches I have ever seen on the PSU sidelines. And I thought Dunn was bad. Incoming recruits have got to wonder if Ed will teach them anything. Sure he won the NIT last year but that was after it took all season for the players to finally get in sync, Battle and the seniors stepped up and everyone played like they had a unified goal to succeed. Seeing them this year it’s hard to believe Ed had a lot to do with it except stay with the seniors and be smart enough to go with the flow. These days it is hard to watch state play. They are disorganized, lack fundamentals, usually get beat down court and play poor defense. How does this happen with a good group of returning players and a reasonable incoming freshmen class? Did there guys just forget how to play after they won the NIT last year? NO, you have to think it is just incredibly poor coaching. Interestingly it looks like they have talent, maybe not enough to stay with the very best but enough to be competitive. With a little coaching this team might not be all that bad

[/quote]

You think it looks like we have the talent? Who are you talking about? Jones/Brooks/Ott are not competitive down low. We don’t have anybody in the 3/4 spots who can take the ball strong to the basket. We also don’t have a second scoring option from the perimeter.


#10

Not to pick on the new guy but if you want anyone around here to take you seriously you better spell the star of the team’s name right. It’s TALOR.


#11

Not sure Ed ever asks himself, “how can I best utilize Jones and Brooks so they get baskets, get to the foul line, etc?” When I saw Ott receive the ball at the arc today, it was like he was holding a pot of soup or an egg which he didn’t want to drop or break. Talk about not having a triple threat. The triple threat was 1. bounce it off his foot, 2. throw it way, 3. call for Talor to come over and get a handoff. How is this a suitable play in what’s supposed to be a dynamic offensive scheme?


#12

Even this admin can’t tolerate a 0-18 season this particular year. Not with the fund raising they have to do this year and next with the football tix. surcharge coming up in 2011. They can’t have a program performing that poorly and still inspire confidence for boosters to outlay cash for the department as a whole.

The problem is much like real estate. The money you could put into moving a house would cut into your profit margin. I am sure the admin is thinking “my god we have to spend 3 million more a year (eds buyout plus a new “name coach”) to at least get a quality effort and not stifle other aspects of the department”. Any other year the penny pinching “spreadsheet” would win out. This year is different. An impression must be made. They can’t take the house off the market.

1-18 is where it gets interesting. Unfortunately losing to Minn. precluded an easy save for Ed. I just can’t see more then one win though. Should have been 5 easy.


#13

Why can’t they win more than 1 game? This team just hung with a top 10 team in the country for 30 minutes. This team beat Virginia at Virginia. This team took Wisky to OT at Kohl. If they can do that, why can’t they beat some of the teams remaining on the schedule?

This team could easily go 0-18 unless they snap out of it and come together and buckle down and play 40 minutes of basketball. They have to develop a balanced game that involves man-to-man defense with logical switching, zone defense, whether it’s 2-3 or a matchup zone. How bout a 1-3-1 zone? Mix it up DeChellis and try to confuse opponents like they did last year. It’s within this team to win more than 1 game this season. Last year Coach DeChellis was BigTen Coach of the Year.

They’ve gotta get creative and start developing some set plays in the half court. As we all know, it all starts on the defensive end.


#14

[quote=“charnold, post:12, topic:837”]Even this admin can’t tolerate a 0-18 season this particular year. Not with the fund raising they have to do this year and next with the football tix. surcharge coming up in 2011. They can’t have a program performing that poorly and still inspire confidence for boosters to outlay cash for the department as a whole.

The problem is much like real estate. The money you could put into moving a house would cut into your profit margin. I am sure the admin is thinking “my god we have to spend 3 million more a year (eds buyout plus a new “name coach”) to at least get a quality effort and not stifle other aspects of the department”. Any other year the penny pinching “spreadsheet” would win out. This year is different. An impression must be made. They can’t take the house off the market.

1-18 is where it gets interesting. Unfortunately losing to Minn. precluded an easy save for Ed. I just can’t see more then one win though. Should have been 5 easy. [/quote]The basketball team and the football team are mutually exclusive. There are many of our football fans who could give a rats ass about basketball. However our alumni do care. It is kind of like ND football and why they won’t join a conference.


#15
[quote="charnold, post:12, topic:837"]Even this admin can't tolerate a 0-18 season [b]this particular year[/b]. Not with the fund raising they have to do this year and next with the football tix. surcharge coming up in 2011. They can't have a program performing that poorly and still inspire confidence for boosters to outlay cash for the department as a whole.

The problem is much like real estate. The money you could put into moving a house would cut into your profit margin. I am sure the admin is thinking “my god we have to spend 3 million more a year (eds buyout plus a new “name coach”) to at least get a quality effort and not stifle other aspects of the department”. Any other year the penny pinching “spreadsheet” would win out. This year is different. An impression must be made. They can’t take the house off the market.

1-18 is where it gets interesting. Unfortunately losing to Minn. precluded an easy save for Ed. I just can’t see more then one win though. Should have been 5 easy.[/quote]
The basketball team and the football team are mutually exclusive. There are many of our football fans who could give a rats ass about basketball. However our alumni do care. It is kind of like ND football and why they won’t join a conference.

I Agree… I bet 95% of those who are ponying up for the football ticket surcharge are thinking of the football program when they write that check. If the AD is doing general athletic fundraising, there’s only a handful of those check-writers who are donating because of basketball first. In the grand sceme of things Hoops has a minor (at best) influence on athletic fundraising.

That’s why it’s so hard to make the absolute commitment to hoops… the donor base is already maxed out with football. It’s not like you can attract a new crop of big doners to help bankroll the program. They’re already chipping in for football. There just isn’t the incremental revenue available for the financial commitment needed to be a perennial power.

To use your real estate analogy, Hoops is like that odd lot around the corner. Not worth dropping a bunch of cash in to, but might be worth something someday just through sheer inertia and by keeping the grass mowed and the taxes paid.


#16

Disagree Mark. There is plenty of money available to bankroll a basketball winner. PSU is close to the top of athletic revenue in the nation. The board needs to force the President who needs to force Curley out of this “go cheap” inbreeding.
It can be done!! Fans who constantly say “It can’t be done” are doing the team/school a large disservice! THAT is my problem with the Apologists!


#17

[quote=“MarkH, post:15, topic:837”]I Agree… I bet 95% of those who are ponying up for the football ticket surcharge are thinking of the football program when they write that check. If the AD is doing general athletic fundraising, there’s only a handful of those check-writers who are donating because of basketball first. In the grand sceme of things Hoops has a minor (at best) influence on athletic fundraising.

That’s why it’s so hard to make the absolute commitment to hoops… the donor base is already maxed out with football. It’s not like you can attract a new crop of big doners to help bankroll the program. They’re already chipping in for football. There just isn’t the incremental revenue available for the financial commitment needed to be a perennial power.

To use your real estate analogy, Hoops is like that odd lot around the corner. Not worth dropping a bunch of cash in to, but might be worth something someday just through sheer inertia and by keeping the grass mowed and the taxes paid. [/quote]

If it requires money to “buy” a successful basketball program then how does one explain the following schools currently ranked in the top 25: New Mexico, BYU, Vanderbilt, Butler, Richmond and No. Iowa? Surely, their AD doesn’t have the financial resources of a PSU. It’s just a matter of priorities.


#18

Right on, Bulldog!


#19

Maybe I’m off base on this one, but with the exception of BYU I would say that these schools over the last 10 years or so have spent as much time in the top 25 as we have. (well, maybe not us… ) but my point is, they’re not perential top-25 programs, they just happen to be on a good run right now. I think you can go through the top 25 at any time and find 4 or 5 schools who don’t normally make it there, but are having a good year and make it, and that goes for us too (although it’s been too long for us, I will admit). I agree, they did not “buy” their way into the top 25, and the times we’ve been there, it woul dbe hte same thing. They’ve either got a good group of seniors, and up and coming coach, an unusually strong recruiting class… some outlying performance that we also have from time to time. However, I would suggest that these “short term” entries into the top 25 is not indicative of the financial strength to needed to remain a perrenial top-25 program.


#20

bulldog I get what you’re saying, but at the same time you have to look at each school situation. Butler, Richmond and UNI have 1AA football, New Mexico has a mid major 1A football team (and a pretty bad one at that), and Vanderbilt has one of the worst, if not the worst, BCS level football programs. BYU is the only one that is equally succesful in football. Point being, these schools are “basketball schools.” For them, basketball is like football to most Penn St fans, and therefore they pour more money into bball. It just comes back to where your priorities lie.