Tiger93

I might have said that. Of course, I would accept an NCAA Tournament under any circumstance. However, other than the tournament I don't see much appealing about winning 15 games, getting a 16 seed and getting slaughtered. I think winning as many games as possible (there is nothing automatically magical about the 20-win mark if you don't beat anyone good), having a quality conference record, a good NET ranking and getting to the NCAA Tournament with as good a seed as possible are all important goals. I don't think we should have to compromise on any of them. I definitely was on the side of saying 2021-22 was not a failure because of winning 25 games, having a top 85 or so NET and tying for a regular-season conference crown. This is a different argument in my mind since that was a historically great regular-season for this program. The 21-12 and 20-14 records of the last two years came with so-so if not bad non-conference slates, and finishing fourth and fifth is not bad but also not something to get overly excited about. This is where I agree with you all about a season not meeting expectations. Just because we get to 20 wins there is nothing to get excited about. I also assume that view is shared by many on here. I guess where I am coming from is I don't think that 15 wins and an NCAA Tournament or 27-5 and no NCAA Tournament is a choice we should have to make. I would also say that if we made the NCAA Tournament and got this monkey off our back, I might actually pick option two the next year. I think boiling the whole season down to three or four conference tournament games has just as much mediocrity attached to it as accepting 20+ wins and a good conference record with no tournament bid. Why does that have to be a choice, why can't we do what Charleston has done the last two years or what Oakland did this year? These are the aspirations I have for this program. This was the argument we went back and forth on a couple of years ago. I still haven't changed my mind, but we haven't come close to repeating the 2021-22 season the last two years and I mostly agree with being disappointed in the last two years. Although, our conference tournament efforts were much better than 2022 which was very disappointing.

I guess the disconnect is that I don't think we are alright with 1 of 3. I think we are just saying that being 38-16 in conference play in three years is a good thing and it is more fun to watch than 29-29 or worse. It is not good enough, but I also don't think it should be dismissed. I also think as a whole there is a lot that needs to be better, and we should all expect more if we want to get there. I don't see why both things can't be true. However, we have this conversation every offseason and I doubt we will ever agree. Ultimately, we all want the same things for this program. However, we will have all of these "agree to disagree" semantics until the job gets done. I look forward to what the topic can be the day after that happens. I guess that is part of what keeps us coming back here. That, and I am guessing a passion for wanting this program to break through its 33-year (soon to be 34) old ceiling.

Fair enough that there are a couple, but you all often make it seem like you are the only crusaders who care if you win on a board full of people who are indifferent. Feel free to accuse me of taking it personally, but I don't think very many of us are alright where things are right now. However, I also think there are a lot of us who can see some of the good in it too. You can be in between without "celebrating" 20 wins. I would also say even the posts you are referring too are not people who are saying everything is great. They are just saying everything doesn't suck. We aren't all going to agree with each other that is alright.

This does not exist. You merely make this up that there are those (on this board at least) who celebrate this. It might be mentioned as a stat, and we might even say it is better than sucking. However, I don't think anyone views this as having arrived where we need to be as a program. This is where I think you put some of those words in people's mouths. We probably put words in your mouths that might not be fair too.

I have two points where I would challenge your post. From 1996-97 through 2011-12 we finished higher than 7th in the conference twice, went to one conference tournament semifinal and were ever were above .500. Since 2012-13, we have finished over .500 10 times, have been fifth or better 10 times, and advanced to five semifinals. I completely agree with you all that none of it is acceptable without an NCAA Tournament berth. However, at least I have optimism that we can be a good team and try to avoid choking as opposed to knowing we would be one of the worst teams in the conference and would have not shot to be in the mix come conference tournament time. This is not meant to be sticking up Skerry, because I would agree while I appreciate what he has done we overdue for a tournament appearance (heck, I think he would admit it too). However, I am just saying from a fan's standpoint it has been much easier to root for and travel to see games know we at least have a decent to good squad most years. This last point would have more ground to stand on if our conference could ever win a conference tournament game, but admittedly at this point it is hypothetical exercise because how pathetic it has been. Based on your points of winning it all being the only result that matters, I would say conference play and non-conference play matter even more. If the goal is to get to an NCAA Tournament, then it should also be to be seeded as good as possible to have the best possible chance to win and accomplish as much as possible. The year Drexel and Delaware made it they had flimsy resumes and got 16 and 15 seeds where they got crushed. Charleston has managed to get 13 and 14, and even a 12 seed. This theoretically gives them a better chance to do well and if our conference wasn't such a joke in NCAA Tournament play this would make a difference. To get a better seed, you have to play well in the regular-season (especially in a one-bid-league). Again, I don't say this to stick up for any particular coach or administrator, or to "accept mediocrity". To me, it is just common sense that to get to where we want to be as fans, this program needs to play well in non-conference play, be good in CAA play, and win in the conference tournament. We are 1 for 3 for the most part recently. Not acceptable, but better than 0-3. Whether it is with or without this coach, we need to figure out the other two elements. How we all perceive the journey to get there is merely a matter of opinion.

I mean at the end of the day you are right about the playoffs generally, but as an Orioles fan it was pretty damn cool to enjoy every game of the season where they won over 100 games for the first time since 1980. I didn't think at the end of the year this is a failure because we didn't win the World Series. I did think if I look back in 5-6 years and the Orioles haven't won the World Series I will be bitterly disappointed, and this is the beginning of the window (which is I guess where we are at with Skerry, which I understand). Of course, sports is weird and things can always go wrong. You aren't guaranteed 100-win seasons every year or winning conference seasons. To me that is why you have to enjoy every season for what it is every year, and then shift to a postseason mindset and look back at the end of the year collectively as to whether you enjoyed it as a fan. I was seven the last time the Orioles won 1983, and I want to be on this earth when they win the next one. However, 1989, 1996, 1997, 2012, 2014 and last year were damn fun. Championship or not. I still also enjoy the fact that Towson is one of the better teams in this conference. Do I want to see them make an NCAA Tournament (a real one before it expands) while I am on this Earth. Not only that, but I would like this program to be good enough to have a shot to pull and upset or two. I still demand that from this program. At the same time, whether it is the Orioles or Towson being a good team throughout the regular season is a helluva a lot more enjoyable than being bad. Both the Orioles and Tigers have given me enough crap that while I don't accept just being good, but it is much better than the other option. What I don't think you guys understand about us quote unquote old timers is we demand every bit as much if not more than you guys do from this program. To me there are levels of success we can get certain levels of satisfaction from. Being a program that consistently has a good record in conference is one of them for me. Am I fully happy with the program. No, it sucks watching the first week of the NCAA Tournament seeing teams do what I would us to do. That is where I want to be, but it is lot easier and realistic to accomplish that goal when you finish fifth, third or tied for first in the conference than it is when you finish eighth or lower (I know it is still possible). Just like playing well in non-conference play and conference play set us up to be a better seed in the NCAA Tournament so when the miracle of us making it actually happens we can be a 13 or a 14 with some change rather than lamb-to-the-slaughter No. 16 seed. All I am saying is all this stuff is inter-related and it is important to be good at all of it to maximize our enjoyment as fans. I don't really get why that seems like settling for mediocrity.

If you really think that I am not sure why you watch any of the games until the conference tournament. That is 22 games over .500 in 54 conference games (70.3 wining %), which is over half (53.5% to be exact) the games we have played the last three years. I know it is not really a great version of the conference, but it is the one we compete in every year. I don't say this to stick up for Skerry or try to give us moral victories. I say it because wining in conference play in the regular season is part of the equation for being a good program. I think it is noteworthy. Not making an NCAA Tournament or having any significant non-conference wins are other parts of the equation, but you can't just ignore the fact that of all the good teams in our conference we are within three games of having the best record the last three years, and are one of only three teams to have finished first or had a share of first in one of those years. If we hired a new coach would you want them to do well in conference play, or does it just not matter at all to you? I know the NCAA Tournament is what matters most, and that is true for everyone here. However, there are other aspects to being a good program. You can say this coach hasn't done enough to lean on those numbers and that is fine, but having a 70% winning percentage in conference games, which are the most important games we play outside of the conference tournament, does not equate to Spring Training.

Their 73 possessions a game are 11 more than our 62. Like I said before, I know there are different philosophies about winning at different paces. However, it is a really fun brand of basketball to watch. Interestingly enough the remaining teams in the NCAA Tournament heading into last night were all over the map in terms of adjusted tempo. Alabama 10, Arizona 16, UNC 42, Illinois 69, NC State 75, Tennessee 78, Gonzaga 86, Marquette 93, Purdue 173, Iowa State 203, Creighton 227, Duke 245, Clemson 259, San Diego State 268, UConn 319, Houston 346. Of course, that is apples to orange when you consider 13 of the 16 rank in the top 30 of offensive efficiency and the others are 41, 53 and 64. The five double-digit non-power conference teams that advanced out of the first round ranked in the following in adjusted tempo. Grand Canyon 70, James Madison 126, Oakland 248, Duquesne 264 and Yale 315. James Madison (71), Grand Canyon (72) and Yale (90) were all top 100 in offensive efficiency. Oakland was 121 and Duquesne was 158. Towson was 358 in tempo and 228 offensive efficiency (I believe were as high as the 170s early in conference play). There are many different ways to do this, but I certainly think having a more efficient and potent offense is an absolute must for this program to get to the next level. I actually believe Pat Skerry looks at a lot of these things in his attempt to try to get us over the hump. However, as we have talked about his principles are mostly grounded in tough defense (were 90th in defensive efficiency) and offensive rebounding.

Yeah, I think there a lot of arguments for what types of styles and pace of play work. However, two I do have a strong feeling about the following concepts. First, no matter what you want to make it an entertaining style for your fans to enjoy. Second, you have to have some level of competent offense to be able to win tough postseason games/pull off upsets. I think of the shots Yale and Oakland were hitting when much more talented Auburn and Kentucky teams were charging hard and trying to come back to avoid upsets. I also think of how relentless and confident Alabama was when is probably a better UNC team kept coming back at them. I know the talent level in that game is something that is hard to compare to our level, but I do think that while being mentally tough is important there also has to be players on the team that can make tough shots when there is pressure building. That is something that needs to be cultivated throughout the year. The way I see it is I want a team that not only is capable of getting to the NCAA Tournament, but one that has a style that makes it tough to game-plan for in one-game situations. I know that is asking a lot, but this is my long way of saying I pretty much agree. Although, I also acknowledge this is all easier said then done. Doesn't mean it isn't worth trying.

I don't think it is a bad graphic to use from the program's standpoint. I doubt very many people realize that we have a better record than Maryland during that span. This is a PR spin, and everyone does it. I agree with you both that it doesn't really amount to much, but you want marketing and PR to do their jobs. This is part of the PR spinning, and I enjoyed this part of job when I did it in my former position. Winning 66 games in three years and going 38-16 in conference play in that timeframe is not nothing. It just doesn't accomplish the ultimate goal of what any of us wants so I get the frustration and I have it too. I do think in general this is worth putting out there. On a sidenote, it really shows me that with Towson as my first team and Georgetown as my 1A team college basketball has not been kind to me as a fan recently.

I completely agree and I did not meant to say we should or shouldn't do it. I just think in general people oversimplify how easy it is to find a coach. It doesn't work out as often as people make it seem like it does. I am really not ever referencing our current situation as much as just the general concept. However, of course it is relevant and we obviously refer to it almost every week on this message board in some way, shape or form.

I agree, but just like Gonzaga is the exception not the rule I would also say it is more common that middling or crappy programs (I would put us in a solid middling category) try to find that superstar coach who will eventually move on to greener pastures and make the program better, and strike out on one or many occasions. This doesn't mean teams shouldn't try to do it, but I do think there is a misconception that you can just get rid of the current coach (not specific to Towson, just a general comment) and magically hire a superstar coach just like that. It is more likely you will hire a dud or just continue mediocrity. Who is making the hire and what the program is doing to make sure whoever they hire can be set up for success is just as big as who you hire. I am not saying anything we don't all know, but I do think this process can be made to seem easier than it is sometimes.

It probably also had to do with the fact that the 24-win season was sandwiched between 13-20 and 12-21 seasons, and they were 49-49 overall and 24-30 in conference play. He also finished outside of the top five in conference play in six of his 10 seasons (of course C-USA and Sun Belt are more competitive than the CAA). Skerry really only had a stretch like D'Antoni's the last three years once between the 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 seasons. The COVID year was his excuse and he bounced back with this best year as a coach at Towson in 2021-22. I understand some of the reasoning for why people want Skerry out, but objectively as an AD who started in March 2022 I don't know many who even if they could would chase out a coach who has been 66-35 (I may have put a different number in yesterday and not counted the two conference tourney wins) overall and 38-16 in conference play the last three years for anything that was happening on the court.

First of all, thank you for your financial donations. It is appreciated that you make that choice out of loyalty to the program. I can't argue with most of this, but I don't agree with propping yourself up as bigger fans than the rest of us. Everyone expresses fandom differently. I would probably have season tickets if I lived there, but I don't so I support them in a different way. What people do with their finances is their own business, and I don't view at as being bigger or better fans than others. I appreciate your call for a change and you have a lot of valid points, but it doesn't mean you are right, more knowledgeable or better informed than everyone else on here. There are a lot of different ways to run a program that can be successful. I actually agree that we may be hitting a point where there is not much room for improvement, however I think there are also arguments against that when you look at the last three years (I know that is slicing and dicing the argument that probably should be made over a longer time period). You also have to take into account that I believe there have been five presidents and three ADs since Skerry started. They will all have different views. Waddell hired him, Leonard extended him, and Eigonbrot has seen probably the best three-year stretch in this program's D-1 history since we actually made the NCAA Tournament. That doesn't mean it is good enough, but I think you all have a distorted view on how our AD should see things. He doesn't have the baggage the rest of us do. That doesn't mean we should hold back from expressing our disappointment. I have some of the same complaints and can't blame you for hitting a point where you are beyond frustrated, but I do think there are valid reasons for being supportive of Skerry too. I appreciate the different viewpoints on this board. It is the reason I still come here as an out-of-state fan. Also, anyone who is coming to this message board on a regular basis, which is generally an outdated way of doing this these days, deserves credit for being a pretty big fan of Towson. To rank where we all stand doesn't really make too much sense to me.

I am stuck in the middle of the two arguments. Greg Kampe is probably the best example and I was going to put the link to his bio for reference. He was in D2 for his 13 years and his team won never won more than one game in the conference tournament in six tries, and took until his 12th year to finish first in the conference. When they moved to D-1 in his 14th year, they weren't eligible to win the tournament for his four years. He did not win a conference tournament game in the first three years he was eligible and then in his 22nd year and 8th year in D-1 he made his first trip to the NCAA Tournament and won three conference tournament games. Since that trip, his team has won the conference tournament three more times and they got their first win in the NCAA Tournament this year. https://goldengrizzlies.com/sports/mens-basketball/roster/coaches/greg-kampe/1764 It took Larranaga until year 15 to get to his first NCAA Tournament, but he did it in year two at George Mason so they didn't have to wait long. I didn't have the patience to dig back through the Bowling Green conference tournament record to see what he did there, but the one big difference is they pulled off a number of upsets and had Antonio Daniels play in the NBA. He was off and running once he made the NCAA Tournament the first time going to another one two years later and NITs in two of the following three years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Larrañaga James Jones is actually a decent case study because in his first 15 season he had a below .500 record. When his team finished tied for first in 2014-15 Harvard went because of the tiebreaker. If we didn't have a conference tournament this would have happened in Benimon's last year with Delaware getting the tiebreaker. If we didn't have a conference tournament, Towson would have ended its drought in 2021-22 with the tiebreaker over UNC-W. Of course, we also would have been the Big South champs under Truax in 1994. The next year Jones finally got over the hump. He has been three times since (would have been four if not for COVID). The big difference and probably benefit to Jones is there was no Ivy League Tournament to judge him on. It was all the regular-season and he generally finished in the top 3 or 4 in most of his first 15 seasons similar to Skerry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Jones_(basketball,_born_1964) I say I am in middle because while I am not holding pitchfork asking to fire Skerry, he has several major differences to these guys that I see (although some of these will be generalizations that I am not sure I can fully quantify). The four things I am mainly critical of Skerry for is lack of getting to a conference tournament final, lack of a signature non-conference win in many tries, not seeing many of his players drastically improve while being here, and playing a style that at times can be tough to watch. I think the best argument for Skerry is the last three years. In a chaotic period of time in NCAA D-1 Basketball, he has turned over the roster a decent amount and done a solid job of roster management to pull in good transfers to keep us competitive. We have finished 1st, t-3rd and 4th, are 66-35 overall and 38-16 the last three year years. The last three years Hofstra is 41-13, Charleston and UNC-W are 39-15 and we are 38-16 in conference play. I know it is relatively small progress, but we went from a no-show against Delaware in the 2022 semis, to hanging with a very good Charleston team in the 2023 semis for 33 minutes to blowing what should have been at trip to the finals this year. I know this isn't really a good thing, but this year was also the first time in Skerry's tenure we beat a team seeded higher than us in the conference tournament (although we almost didn't get there with a bad performance against William & Mary to be fair). My point here is there has been some progress, and if you were Eigonbrot who has been around for a good part of this three-year period why would you contemplate firing Skerry. You wouldn't. My point in all this is I am very frustrated with what Skerry can't do and don't completely rule out the crowd that wants him fired now, but there is good and bad. This shouldn't stop us from trying to replace him if there ever was a desire by the AD to do so, but it wouldn't be easy to find a coach of his quality to replace him. He has been very solid. We need him to be better. He has taken small steps in the right direction the last three years, but there are a lot of ways and his previous years can be ammunition for and against his case.