Tiger93

I agree, it has evolved quite a bit over the years, to the point where calling it the Princeton offense is almost inaccurate (except for referring to the evolutions). That was my point in bringing up Georgetown because that was the first time that I recall that a program with high-major talent mostly ran that offense. For the most part it had good results. I agree on the layups and free throws, but if you don't have good spacing you want get those or any of the other shots you want. One thing that drives me crazy about modern college basketball is the insistent of leaning into the glamor of hitting the tough three-point. That being said, an offense that consistently gets good shooters open looks from efficient three-point spots can be highly effective. To me the offense is more about dictating to the defense what shots you want and get, and giving yourself space. The Princeton Offense can definitely be an effective tool to get this done, but is obviously not for every team.

My point is that Georgetown ran a very similar offense with more high-end talent and got good results from it. There are so many variations on the sets from what I understand that it really requires a team to buy into it, have an overall team mentality, and understand at times they will be sacrificing their shots for the betterment of the team. That is hard to get people to do. It also takes patience and calm since it often can take a number of passes to get what you want out of it, and sometimes that happens at the end of the shot clock. That requires players to see it through to the best results, and not hoist up three-point and panic when one part of it doesn't work. I do feel like the taking the air out of the ball reputation, which came when Carril first made it to the tournament, can be misrepresented. If a team gives you an open opportunity out of the set there is nothing saying the offense not to shoot it. However, it is mostly designed to be patient, precise and versatile to get the best possible opportunity on every possession. Of course, every offense is designed to get the best possible opportunity. I view that offense as a little different because of the ways you go about trying to do it.

We definitely fall into that trap in some games this year, and there were also decent amount of times we leaned too heavily on Nick down the stretch of games. However, I don't view that as a fair overall characterization for what the offense was trying to do in general and how it was run when it was working. I think you are actually both right. Skerry has evolved his offense somewhat from what it used to be, and he still has more evolving to do to make it more effective. However, it still boils down to who he recruits, how they take to his system, and how they perform.

I believe a lot of teams (even NBA squads) have taken variations from the Carril offense over the years and incorporated it. Georgetown under JTIII ran a variation of it from the early to middle part of his career. It wasn't purely the Princeton offense, but it was pretty close to mostly being the Princeton offense. He took a lot of criticism for it and did eventually did back of it little by little. I don't know how much truth there was to it, but as you said people were claiming none of the top kids wanted to come and be part of a program that mostly ran Princeton stuff. I just know the early part of his time with Georgetown was probably their most successful stretch since the mid-to-late 90s. There are a lot of really smart basketball plays to be make in those sets, but it requires developing a full all-around skillset which can sometimes limit the individual. Not something a lot of current players buy into unless you can reshape it around them.

Good point on the size. It felt like in the Monmouth game their center and in general their entire interior defense disrupted everything in that game and we were just hoping for points. I didn't see last night's game, but very disappointing ending to an otherwise positive season as many on here have already said. Also disappointing, that after beating Towson in the finals Monmouth couldn't even make it out of the play-in game against Tennessee Tech.

Agree to disagree. The major goal is making the NCAA Tournament, but you have to field a team for the other 30 games of the year. We may as well just not play December-March and just show up and roll the dice with your logic. There is no joy when you miss the tournament, but according to you every aspect of the season is a failure if you don't make the tournament and that is complete nonsense. Of course getting knocked out by a seven seed makes it more disappointing, but this is year one for the coach and it was a pretty good season overall. You always make fun of the parade for 20 wins and no NCAA Tournament, but there is an equal if not higher level of mediocrity to those who would prefer 10 wins, an NCAA Tournament appearance and a 50-point loss. There are a lot of in-betweens and the regular-season does have to matter for something other than seeding. At least that is my opinion. Respectfully, you won't change mine and I likely won't change yours.

I loved the Pat Kennedy hire when it happened and I really appreciated the fact that he helped this Athletic Department figure out a lot of things they were doing wrong. It set the stage for what Pat Skerry has been able to do. Kennedy was also awesome at Iona, Florida State and early on at DePaul. However, from the 2000-01 season at DePaul all the way through Montana (where he did have the resources to win that conference) and his Towson run things went downhill pretty quickly. I remember thinking when Kennedy left, we just aren't going to ever find anyone to turn around this sinking ship. I credit Mike Waddell for being pretty plugged in to the assistant coaching camp and circuit, which was a clique a lot of younger ADs were around and used to cultivate young coaching talent. Skerry was definitely a good up and coming coach when we got him and I really appreciated that. I think Griggey20 said it best. Talking about firing Skerry right now doesn't make much sense, but there can't be much of a drop off and we can't accept anything less than continuing to make progress to trying to get to the NCAA Tournament (I hope I didn't take what you said out of context). One reason why I was hesitant to look at other coaches in the past in football and basketball is I just didn't trust the AD in place to do it very well. I am glad Eigonbrot made the football hire and not Leonard, and I do trust him to figure out what to do based on how Skerry performs in the next year or so. I actually am optimistic that Skerry has figured out some things the last couple of years, but I am extremely interested to see what he gets out of the portal this offseason, because it is an important part in not letting this program take a step back.

Fair, but overall it was a successful season. Not everything is defined by one game. The loss to a No. 7 seed in the title game at home, definitely lessens the level of that success quite a bit. However, it does not make the season completely unsuccessful. If they were 11-21 and went the NCAA Tournament it would not be a complete success either. We will probably have this argument for an eternity even though we are looking for a similar level of success out of these teams, as I am sure they all are out of themselves.

Yeah, they also lost to Morgan State by 28 earlier in the year and beat Willam & Mary 32 (when they easily could have lost to them in the semis). They beat Monmouth by six on the road earlier this year. Guess what, sometimes teams play great, sometimes they lay eggs, and sometimes your opponent just kicks your ass and there is very little you can do it about it. It is not always down to one team choking and playing horribly as we often attribute (although Towson also couldn't buy a bucket in close yesterday). Granted, you rarely play well when you lose by 25, but as was stated Monmouth played extremely well and you know what they did the same against Drexel and Northeastern who also were good in the regular-season. My point, stop judging everything on one game. They played 32 games this season and they played well enough to win 21 of them. They didn't play well enough to win yesterday by a mile and that sucks. This program is just starting to grow into itself. Everyone deserves criticism when they don't deliver, but this team deserves far more praise than criticism and I expect more to come for as long as we can keep Laura Harper.

Not disputing any of this, just responding to the joke with a joke of my own. I am only a defender of Skerry in the sense of firing a coach who has won 46 games in the and gone 27-9 in conference play the last two years seems extremely absurd on the surface, but I do understand the ultimate balance sheet and the frustration of how long it has been since we appeared in the NCAA Tournament. I just don't engage in this argument much because I know where you stand and you know where I stand. It doesn't help to put words in people's mouths, which often happens on both ends here so I won't do it. I respect the viewpoints and understand why everyone feels this way, I just don't agree at this particular time with your course of action (I was a lot closer to all of you after 2020-21 even thought COVID was an unfair time to do it). Believe me when I tell you I have done as much or more research on the futility of this program to get to a conference tournament final (as it pertains to the conference and nationally) over the last 30 years than anyone here. It is more than just Skerry, but having been here for nearly half of that timeframe now he certainly wears a decent amount of the failure of it despite the fact that he has done the best job of anyone this side of terry Truax to make this program respectable. Ultimately, there is a point in time where the absurdity needs to end in terms of the NCAA Tournament drought. As I have said and will continue to say, it is borderline idiotic to chase out a coach that has done what Skerry has done the last two years. Where I completely agree with you all is these type of conference seasons and being in the mix for a tournament appearance (semis or better in the conference) is the minimum standard I expect next year no matter how many players we lose. Whether that is realistic or not, that is what the modern-day college basketball landscape is like. If we take a step back there are 4-5 programs ready to leap over us, and that is where I draw the line of unacceptable. I imagine that is close to where Steve Eigonbrot is as a person that has to make logical decisions about these types of things.

Well, most coaches do go to the Coaches Convention which is actually at the Final Four. So if he goes to that he would be closer, but don't let that get in the way of your joke.

One team ranked below Towson in the preseason coaches poll (NC A&T) and we go out and lose two of three to start the conference season. As everyone said, underfunded with no expectations.

Generally hasn't affected the volleyball team, but I get your point. The Same Old Towson stuff gets old, and as much as I get frustrated with it too I really think this was more about what Monmouth did in this tournament than Towson choking. At some point, you have to tip your cap to the other team even if they were the No. 7 seed in their first of the conference. They took it to everyone in this tournament, beating all three first-place teams. Back to drawing board Towson, but hopefully this is just the beginning for the program and Laura Harper.

Yeah, that was a crappy way to end the tournament. Give credit to Monmouth who caught fire, came to play in the CAA Tournament, and played some hellacious defense in the paint all day. Towson just could not figure out anything on offense. Part of it was on them, part of it was that no luck on their side, and a big part of it was Monmouth's effort and their center who altered a ton of shots. It sucks once again that we missed out on the opportunity to possibly be a 14 seed (where we were projected) in the NCAA Tournament (better than being a 16 against UConn, which was impossible) by losing to the 7th place team in the CAA. I normally would have that attitude about the WNIT, but with a first-year head coach, back-to-back appearances in the WNIT, and postseason tournament appearances in the 2019 NCAA Tournament, 2022 WNIT and this year there seems to be something to build off of with in the program. Very proud of this program and their year, and hopefully it can be springboard with an up and coming coach.

Was a little tight in the first quarter, but as someone I was talking to about the game said they did what No. 1 seeds are supposed to do in conference tournaments. Sounds like next up is William & Mary. We swept them in the regular-season. Of course, we know that guarantees nothing. Hopefully, they are playing on CBS Sports on Sunday in the final and we get a good crowd and a decent amount of people. As we have all said before, this has been a great story. I know there are reasons for doing this, but I really wish they would flip the dates of the CAA men's and women's tournament so the men's tournament ran Wednesday to Sunday. Frankly, they should be both go Wednesday-Sunday that but I know the men's tournament is dictated by CBS Sports other scheduled tournament games. Being a mid-major conference, Wednesday-Sunday seems to make more sense than Friday-Tuesday because the teams who have a better chance to win seeding wise can actually have an easier time making travel plans. Didn't mean to get too far off the great job the women's team is doing, but just wanted to share my thoughts. I am also very aware that TV is king and controls everything and there are about 10-15 conversations we are not privy to that dictate this stuff.

I won't argue that. Cam was definitely a huge part of the success the program has had in the past two years. Not sure where we would have been if you substitute a transfer miss in his place. Probably somewhere in the middle of where we were in 2020-21 and this year.

Bloop singles and doubles are fine as long as there is one home run in there somewhere. Nolan Jr was probably a double (could have been a triple if healthier) and I think Russell Rizzuto were more like walks. Sylla was probably a hit by pitch. I know I am torturing the metaphor. Cam was pretty close to a home run, but with some of the free throw shooting and regression ultimately ended up being more of a triple. I know this is a huge generalization, but I do think the Cam-type of player is a good one to target. Someone who has versatility and has been an all-conference performer in a similar or a little lower level than ours. Easier said then done, because it seemed like a lot of things fell into place for him to end up here. I like the idea of really good D-2 players and it has worked well for many schools. I think the Sylla gamble was a good one, but like I said when you watched film of him you could tell a role player was the best we were getting. I have been a Georgetown fan most of my life as well and watched Benimon his freshman year. I remember thinking as long as he wasn't too selfish it was a huge get to have someone of his talent at Towson. That and Gary Neal's situation seem like blind luck. Every year is different, but thank goodness for the transfer portal because this it would be an impossible transition (might still be very rough) without it. This adds to the intrigue of roster building for next year. Skerry deserves tremendous credit for what pulled off in 2021, but the pressure is on to keep doing it or else regress.

True, but it is overstuffing the rosters and blocking other player future opportunities. Probably better in some ways for quality of play. On its own, I completely agree with not shortchanging a player out of their career. Paired with NIL, Transfer Portal and the general way things go these days it just makes for more of a mess. Again, I am not saying don't do it. I just don't like seeing sixth (unless medical and or family hardship) and seventh year players. It will be gone soon anyways, and it is a pretty small issue in the grand scheme of everything.

Logically I know this, but it seems like after the 2021-22 year, when it needed to be an effect, it just created an unnecessary stack of players and a lot of absurd eligibility loopholes. It is the world we live in and I appreciate the opportunities for the players, but it just feels like it has gotten absurd. I will be glad to see it go. NIL is enough to deal with, stacking the extra eligibility year on top of it is creating a weird Frankenstein effect on college basketball.

Interested in opinions that people have about what sparks their interest most on transfers. Success stories of an all-conference performance like Holden, players looking to come home from something that happened somewhere else like Neal, or players looking to be the focal point of a team or change of style in play from a big school like Benimon. I know there is no one ingredient that makes anyone successful, but after our transfer class in 2021 I really would like to be able to nab at least one player that comes with all-conference honors from another conference (easier said then done). The D-2 Player of the Year excited me quite a bit in Sylla, but it was clear when you saw his film that he would be a complementary player. Charleston hit a home run on Brzovic, who I think was also a D-2 transfer. What do other people look at it and get excited by with transfer credentials? I know we all used to hate this stuff, but college is free agency and this is the new world of recruiting and figuring out the right formula to keep a team loaded with quality players. Once you have a program up and running, and transfers are part of the formula there really shouldn't be much of an excuse not to reload the next year. I know that is a lot for coaches, but this was they are signing up for in this era of college hoops.

I hope the best for Nick. He has been a great player to root for and part of one of my favorite classes in school history. However, it is time to leave college and go to the next venture which I hope is some sort of professional option for him. This may be an unpopular opinion, but these sixth and seventh year players in college basketball are just as big of an issue as some people think one-and-dones are for the quality of college basketball. If we are not going to abide by the regular five-year cycle what is the point of it being college anymore? That being said if there is a ridiculous seventh-year player like Dalton Bolon (which I find absurd) that can finally get us to the NCAA Tournament lets do it. Anyways, best of luck to Nick and I hope he gets to make whatever decision he choses on his terms.

No doubt, I didn't even sit with most Towson fans last year because the lower bowl tickets were ridiculously priced. I thought it was cool that for about $30 earlier this year that I could pretty much sit courtside behind the bench at the United Center when Towson played UNI even thought very few people were there. They should be putting this tournament on from Wednesday to Sunday (I know TV controls this, but there has to be a better way to manage it), lowering prices and pushing it more to the general public as a cheap ticket. I worked in college athletics for 20 years, and I know the marketing people I worked with worked really hard to think of new, creative and exciting ways to promote the events no matter where I worked. I bristle a little at simplistic solutions people have and that they don't think marketing departments haven't alright thought of this stuff. However, in this case the conference is shooting themselves in the foot before marketing folks even get a crack at promoting the event.

I love Charles, but I felt like for the most part in the three matchups Brzovic got the better of him. No shame in that because in three games against Charleston it felt like Brzovic and Scott were their best players (Reyne Smith was obviously pretty good yesterday too). Maybe I am crazy, but I thought in the second and third games that Biekeu actually guarded Brzovic more effectively than Charles did. That being said, the miss on the intentional foul was a big one. Unfortunately, Conway and Timberlake are probably the only guys on the team that would have had a chance to make both in that spot. Also on the play where Biekeu ran over the shoot they should have called travel, foul or something in the lane when Bolon had the ball. That was a really bad sequence of many for the refs. I don't really think the bad calls tilted the game because they were spread equally around to both teams (the blatant shove by Biekeu on Brzovic late in the game was pretty bad too), but that one pissed me off.

Never making it to a CAAT Championship game and not making it to a Conference Championship final since 1992 are not good enough for any of us. I don't think anyone would suggest just being good enough to compete with Charleston satisfied anyone. We just have many different ways to look at how to move forward. Last time I checked no one here is 100% on their predictions or opinions, which is why I come here to see the different perspectives of passionate Tiger fans. Let's face it I can't walk out the door in Minnesota (probably not in Maryland either) and have these conversations with just anyone.

Probably had to do with the fact that it was Siddle's first full year (second overall with the COVID year) as head coach and they are still building the expectations and culture for future players. Similar to what we were trying to do in 2014. He even mentioned in his postgame interview after the Drexel win that they know how to win in a tournament format based on past success (I think he alluded to the CBI title and the Bahamas victory they had earlier this year).