Tiger93

If these teams were currently in the conference for basketball, it would be an even more competitive league this year. From a football standpoint, obviously losing James Madison takes a lot of legitimacy away from the conference in the short-term. I think overall we are entering an era where the FCS is maybe even being bumped down another peg. The way I see it you have the Power Five, top level Group of Five teams and conferences, bottom-level Group of Five teams and conference and the FCS. North Dakota State is probably its own category, because they can maintain popularity, success and revenue somehow without moving anywhere and would only move if somehow a Power Five door opened up for them (which seems unlikely). I think in the near future the FBS will break off in this groups in a clearer fashion. It would help the FCS to somehow tap into combining in some way with this bottom Group of Five level, and seeing who can survive but who knows how that will happen. Without James Madison, Delaware and Villanova will really need to carry the water to keep this a top league. I would like to say Towson is one of those teams (and there is always potential), but that feels a long way off right now. Hopefully the next AD can work with the president and unveil a 10-year plan that makes sense and aligns with our overall aspirations. I think that could go a lot of different directions, but I have always felt the FBS conversations we were having back when we were a consistently a good team (for that small span of time) were unrealistic.

Good to see us win another game that required us to be mentally tough down the stretch. That is now two of those in three games with the win over Charleston in similar fashion. Of course, UNC-Wilmington out toughed (I know now a real word) us down the stretch and they have been doing that to everyone. It wasn't pretty, but I think it says a lot about the character of this team that they did this with Nolan Jr. getting hurt midway through the game, against one of the most talented teams in the conference (seems like it is Delaware, us and maybe Hofstra, although I know UNC-W begs to differ) on the road, and in their fifth game in nine days. Matt, I always appreciate you posting the postgame quotes, and when I read Skerry's quote about not being able to practice and the schedule it seemed like an excuse. However, when I went back and looked I realized because of make-up games we were playing two more games (11 total) in January then anyone else in the conference. We have just played a stretch from January 15-24, where we had one day off in between four of the five games and two days in between the other one. I think one or two other teams had similar schedules in the stretch (I believe UNC-W was one of them). That being said, I like the grit and determination this group has show. The health of Hicks and Nolan Jr. was mentioned earlier in this thread, and even though we are still able to beat quality teams I really hope we can get Nolan Jr. healthy and back into the flow of the team before the conference tournament. I really feel like when both Nolan Jr. and Holden are playing well and everyone else can slide into supporting roles and lean into their strengths we are a team that could be favored to win the conference. Without Nolan Jr. at a high level we still have a chance, but it will be a little more of a crapshoot and we will have to continue to with toughness like we did last night. I only listened and did not get to see the game so I don't know how much to attribute to our defense holding Delaware to 5-26 from three-point shooting range, but I imagine they will shoot better on Thursday. It was good to see us outrebound Delaware, grab 10 offensive boards and go to the free-throw line 20 times. I like it when we can combine the good characteristics of the past Skerry teams (offensive rebounding and getting to the free-throw line) with some of the timely outside shooting and Holden's consistency (even though he is obviously still getting back to full strength).

It hasn't been against the toughest group of teams, but UNC-Wilmington has won seven straight and hasn't lost a game since December 11. Their buzzer beater yesterday probably has them pretty excited, and they have beaten Delaware and won at Charleston, which I think will be harder and harder to do as the season progresses. I still feel like we should win this game at home, but this is another big test for our group to pass to continue all the great momentum we have built to this point and recently in conference play.

I am a relatively glass half-full person when it comes to this team (and surprisingly even this program, although I like to mix in reality as well), but no matter what we do the rest of the season every game of the conference tournament is going to be never-racking. I like this team, and think it has a good shot to do something pretty special. However, from the early glimpse I have seen of this conference I don't expect anything to come easy for anyone the rest of the way. Especially once the conference tournament starts. I am not putting everything into the next four games, but Saturday's game with UNC-W, the home and home with Delaware (who looks pretty good) and the rematch with Drexel will tell us a decent amount about this team (at that point JMU will be the only team we haven't played). I will be happy with 3-1, mildly satisfied with 2-2, very disappointed with 1-3, and the excitement will really build if somehow we are 4-0 in that stretch.

I completely agree, which is why I picked those two teams on our schedule specifically for the hypothetical. Ohio State is 21 and San Francisco is 36. A road win over Ohio State and a neutral-site win against San Francisco would have probably kept us in the top 45 with the scenario you outlined (any more than two losses in conference, especially to the wrong team, and it would not work). Heck, just beating Navy when they were in the 60s, losing to Monmouth who was in the 50s in 60s until recent losses dropped them to 101, and losing to San Francisco and Ohio State has us at 72 right now. Anyways, the hypothetical exercise is not really useful in any way other then to show that a big non-conference win or two combined with a solid non-conference slate to can reframe the narrative of a whole season. Add in a successful conference slate and it is another strong part of the resume. Of course, we both agree the margin for error in the conference play is pretty slim. We are starting to get decent mid-major buzz this year. Our numbers are not good enough for an at-large bid this year, but we will part of that fringe conversation if we can keep this up and only lose 2-3 conference games. However, that is going to be very difficult based on what I am seeing. As much as people knock our conference, I do think Hofstra, Delaware, us, Charleston, Wilmington and probably Drexel (since they beat us) all look pretty competitive at this point.

It is an interesting hypothetical and shows where the conference is right now (it has been a while since it has been a multi-bid league obviously). With this year's numbers, I think we would be in the conversation for an at-large with wins over both those teams. We didn't really come close to beating either so I am not sure it is really even a worthwhile conversation, but I only mentioned it because we did hang around and compete in both games. Just a hypothetical and the type of conversation I wish we could be in for real as a program, but we have just as many major non-conference upsets in recent memory as we do appearances in conference tournament finals. Both are areas where we could do much better. For now, I will just enjoy the rest of this season and grabbing a hard-fought victory over College of Charleston on what sounded like far from our best night (full disclosure, I was working another game and only was able to follow it through live stats).

I know I am probably nitpicking a little much, but if we were a No. 1 seed in the conference tournament (meaning we won the regular-season) I would consider the season a success before the conference tournament started. If we lose anywhere in the tournament it would be a bitter disappointment, but it would not make the whole season a failure. I agree that out of three phases of the season I listed the conference tournament is the most important, but they all build off each other. Hypothetically if we had somehow beaten Ohio State and San Francisco we would have a NET ranking good enough to get us an automatic bid going into conference play. If we finished first and lost three or less games in conference play that bid still might be in play. That would lessen the importance of the conference tournament. My overall point is I would like the raise the standards on those different phases of the season and the overall quality of our program's level of play for the season so we don't have to only rely on a conference tournament to define success. This season is a good small step in that direction. Call it "pie in the sky" if you will, and it probably is now, but I find it more important to build a team where this is a possibility than one that can win in the conference tournament. Sometimes you can control when a No. 8 seed (or any other team) shoots out of their mind and knocks you. The one point where I will completely agree with TuTigers2012 is we have to play better in the conference tournament. That is a Pat Skerry issue now because he is the coach, but it has been an every coach issue at Towson since I have been here (with a couple of exceptions where we maxed where we belonged). My final point is good mid-major programs take care of business the whole season and let the chips fall where they may. That is the place I want to get to.

Agreed, but as much as the NCAA Tournament or bust is the ultimate goal it should not be the only focus of success. Having the whole season rest on a crapshoot of 3/4 games and blowing off what happens in the other 30+ games is not really logical. I do get that we can't full claim success until we accomplish the goal of getting to the NCAA Tournament, but I view the season as three different portions to measure success, as I think many others do in some way, shape or form. 1) Non-conference play - This year we entered conference play with a NET rating in the 70s and only had losses to really good USF and Ohio State teams, which I consider extremely successful. Of course, the negative was a brutally bad start to Monmouth (who is good, but does not excuse the start) and some poor late-game execution against Pittsburgh. I would say I would give us a B+ for what we did in non-conference play leading into conference play. 2) Conference play - We are still very early in this process, but so far we have been pretty solid minus some late-game shakiness against Drexel and even a little against Northeastern. It remains to be seen what we do here, but so far so good. 3) Conference Tournament - This is where we can get the ultimate reward and I get why everyone wants it to be the end all be all, but to me it is like the final exam to our season. We can't have a A or B+ season without accomplishing what we want, but it doesn't just become an "F" season because we performed poorly in my opinion. Also, if we make the NCAA Tournament this year we might actually be able to be a 13 or 14 seed (with our NET ranking) where an upset could be a remote possibility (I know UMBC won as a No 16 seed, but that may not happen again for a while). That seeding would be based on the strength of our regular-season. If we can win the regular-season title (which is still very far away as a goal), we can at least clinch a shot at playing in the NIT even if we fall short in the conference tournament. To me this would also be a good step for our program (the other postseason tournaments have some entertainment value, but I am done giving them much meaning as steps forward for the program). Again, we all want the same thing but I would rather hold ourselves to higher standard all year long then only focusing on winning the 3/4 games in our conference tournament. As fun as that will be when the time comes, and it will happen at some point in my lifetime. Also, in your post I think you make it sound like I am referencing resources, funding, budget and other parts of the building process. I know those are important, but I am only focusing on things we can accomplish on the court that give us confidence to continue to build and be better as a program. NET rankings based on performance, upsets, KenPom rankings based on performance, conference-record and non-conference success are the part that I am focusing on in this conversation. Of course, the other aspects are a whole different conversation that could take up a lot of space on this board too. I am not trying to dismiss the importance of accomplishing a trip to the NCAA Tournament, I just get annoyed when it is the only measure anyone wants to use. I hope we all post after these games and are enjoying this season because we get excited when this team wins in the regular-season too, and I think that is true.

I understand this sentiment, and believe me making the NCAA Tournament is the most important goal for everyone here. However, the NET rankings, KenPom rankings, playing well in non-conference play, being a regular-conference contender annually and putting a quality team that can compete in games like the Ohio State matchup earlier this year are all examples of how you build a sustainably successful program. I don't want to make the NCAA Tournament and wait another 30 years for another. I want to build this into a consistently successful program that we can get excited about year in and year out. That is why some of these other steps are just as important as success in the conference tournament, which can be a crapshoot and does not always produce a deserving winner. The road to building a successful basketball program is not nearly as daunting as doing so in the current football landscape. I am hoping this year can not only yield a trip to the the NCAA Tournament, but also act as a foundation for future success. I do realize that making the NCAA Tournament is the most important step in this process, but the other building blocks are huge parts of it and acting like everything is a zero-sum game for mid-majors is somewhat short-sighted. Hopefully, this conversation will be pointless and we will all be celebrating a trip to the NCAA Tournament in March, but as many of us have said there is a long way to go. It has been a fun year so far, and hopefully that continues.

Also, don't forget 2012-13, where we had Bilal Dixon and most of the guys from that 2013-14 team, and finished 13-5 in a CAA that still had ODU and George Mason (although not great versions of them). I still view that year, as Pat Skerry's best coaching job coming off 1-31. Of course, we didn't play in the CAA Tournament that year. The 2012-13 and 13-14 teams probably had better starting lineups, but this is is probably the deepest team that I can remember having since I have followed Towson. The 1993-94 team (John James, Ralph Blalock, Scooter Alexander, Stevie Thomas, Quinten Moody, Deron Robinson, Michael Keyes, Matt Campbell) is the closest thing I can remember that is comparable to this depth in a very different way. That is also the last team to win a regular-season conference title, which I hope we have in our sights this year. Also, you are both right. To this point, 13-5 is our best record through 18 games since we have been D-1 (per Spiro on the broadcast). However, we are still only five games into conference play and have not even faced three of the other top teams in our league. With the craziness of Covid and other factors that could take guys out, I am celebrating what is going on now while cautiously looking forward to trying to keep it up. Great job by everyone so far, but we have still have 13 conference games left. Hopefully, we are where we want to be at the end of the season. Then we need to face down our biggest demon of all, conference tournament play (and that is not just a Pat Skerry demon).

I think we are seeing the transfer portal has completely change roster construction. Especially with COVID years giving players another year of eligibility. Good transfers almost seem like a more effective way of getting good quicker for mid-major and mid-level power teams (especially this year). The teams bringing in the very top level freshman prospects can usually get immediate returns (and they can also fill in top level transfers where they want), but in the case of a mediocre mid-major it is almost working just as well or better in some cases to bring in players from other programs who want a better opportunity to showcase what they can do. Every team still has to recruit freshman and try to develop players, but the transfers have definitely added a new wrinkle as to how to build a team. This year's Towson team is actually a solid blend of both. We brought in Charles Thompson, Jason Gibson and Nick Timberlake as freshmen and they have all been good to solid, but last year there was too much being asked of them. Bringing in Holden, Nolan Jr., Paar and Rizzuto has allowed them to focus more on their roles. It is also been nice to see Juwan Gray make the most of his extra year when he has been on the court. I wouldn't give Pat Skerry full credit for having wonderful foresight to make this happen, but he definitely pieced together the parts very well this year. It doesn't matter how we get the talent, we just need to keep adding it to the program. I think Skerry has done a good of this for most of his time here. What he hasn't been good at is fitting the right pieces together, and having a successfully philosophy to have them thrive. This team is constructed well, and hopefully Skerry is learning lessons he can carry forward. Of course, there is still a long way to go to label this year a full success, and even if we continue at this high level in the regular-season Pat still has the crappy postseason monkey to get off his back. That being said, I am enjoying the journey of watching this team and I do feel like they have the potential to do something special this year.

Seems a couple of points high and it has gone down to -2.5 last I checked, but I don't think I would bet on either side in this game. Feels like a lot of outcomes are in play and nothing would surprise me tonight. We need to shoot the ball better from three-point land and have better perimeter defense. We were shooting 37.1% from three going into conference play and have shot 22.5% in the two conference games. Not coincidentally our assists went from 13.4 apg prior to conference play to 9.5 apg in the two conference games. The Drexel three-point shooting was as bad as it gets and probably an aberration, but I do think part of why we were able to move the ball so well and get assists in non-conference is because we were shooting the ball well enough to have multiple threats from 3, which made for better offensive spacing and gave us more scoring options. When we are not shooting well (like most teams), everything stagnates and we get into the ugly Pat Skerry offense of the past style. It also feels like Hofstra has the potential to shoot us out of the game so we can not exhibit the poor defensive rotations we had at Drexel, which allowed them a lot of clean open looks at three-pointers.

I agree with most of this. The only thing I would add is our perimeter defense was terrible. Too many uncontested threes, and shooting well form three was the only way Drexel was going to beat us. I thought for most of the game we did a decent job of realizing it was not our night from three-point land, and really worked hard to get good looks in the paint and tough offensive rebounds. It felt like we abandoned that mindset the last 2-3 minutes. I know in end-of-game situations getting to the bucket gets harder, but we had a clear inside advantage (especially based on who was missing for Drexel). Nolan's two threes before the last shot weren't terrible, but there were better shots to be had if we probed and worked for them. Really good teams do that. My big disappointment with last night is we finally have a team that can win in different ways, and we did not close it out against a team that we had a clear advantage against. All criticisms by others on this board are fair, but I do think this is the best roster we have had since the Benimon years. I am not going to crush them for losing one game. However, if this team finishes anywhere outside of the top three in the conference I will be very disappointed.

Hofstra got a nice win at Monmouth last night. It is always dangerous to project based off non-conference play, but it seems like Hofstra has the highest upside in this conference. I think we are right there with James Madison and Delaware in terms of the next group. I also think Charleston seems like they might have the best coach in the league, and even though they don't look great so far I always respect Northeastern because Bill Coen has consistently been the best coach in the conference. Drexel seems like they could be decent and UNC-W, William & Mary and Elon look pretty bad so far. One of my favorite parts about this game is we have now played fairly well in road games at Navy (I know, pretty easy trip time wise), Ohio State, Kent State, Albany (who doesn't look very good), along with playing solid in neutral-site games against New Mexico and San Francisco. We were alright against Pittsburgh, and the only real big lapse we have had that has cost us in a big way was the start of the Monmouth game at home. It is good to see us play consistently away from home. Someone talked about our shooting being lights out and that being unsustainable, and while I somewhat agree, one of my favorite things about this roster coming into the year is guys like Charles Thompson, Nick Timberlake and Jason Gibson have not pressure to perform. They can let the game come to them. If they have hot nights they will lead us to victory and when they have off nights they can kind of fade into the background. This is especially the case for Timberlake and Gibson, since we are somewhat thin in quality in our frontcourt. The depth and unselfishness of this team are something I don't think I have seen since my freshman year of college when we had quality in Stevie Thomas, John James, Ralph Blalock and Scooter Alexander, and then guys like Moody, Keyes and Deron Robinson who contribute here and there. We had other good players with Benimon, but that was not a really deep team and we relied quite a bit on him. Last thing is the Three Man Wave podcast I have reference before talk about us as mid-major team that is playing well in a podcast over the weekend. You can listen around the 26 minute mark of episode #241. https://www.three-man-weave.com/podcasts

I hope that the group already has some ideas of people they would be interested in bringing to campus. I generally expect a president and some of the people on those committees to be plugged into the point of having some ideas for what they want, and who might be good at this. Of course, once you decide not to do the search firm route and you are not at a big time school where the president can get who they want and ram it down everyone else's throat, you get into the bureaucracy and agendas from committees. It will be interesting to see what kind of candidates emerge from this process. I definitely agree with the sentiment of this being a commuter school and fans caring about a lot of other things, but ultimately it comes down to can you build a winning tradition with something fans can be proud of and excited to attend. I don't live in the state, but I knew a handful of Maryland fans who were closer to Towson geographically than College Park who started coming regularly to Towson football during the Terrance West era because we were good and we were a fun watch. If this basketball team stays on its current trajectory, makes it to the tournament or comes close (I know I am beginning to sound delusional) and can put together a good roster next year (who knows) more people will come. It will take 3-5 years of that type of team to get people excited and plan on coming somewhat regularly, but winning draws eyeball. However, you have to win big and win consistently. This is why despite the fact that at times I think people on here can be overly critical of Skerry and Ambrose (not that there have not been many times they haven't deserved it), I also agree with the sentiment that if you are not trying to win big what are you doing? This is may sound ridiculous, but if this basketball season is shaping up to be a special one I think that might help slightly with drawing better candidates.

It is a battle of the two best college basketball teams in the state according to the NET rankings. Navy is 66 and Towson is 81. By the way, the Terps are 121. Also UMBC is 231, UMES is 233, Loyola is 243, Coppin State is 301, Mt. St. Mary's is 314 and Morgan State is 338. By the way, it may sound silly but this is why I think it is important to play this game against Navy. We have a pretty high NET ranking mostly based on the quality teams we have lost to and the fact that we have beaten pretty much everyone else (except for a bad Pittsburgh team), but I think it is important for mid-major teams to be mindful of where they sit in these rankings in case they are in the mix for postseason play which I hope Towson will be (that may be wishful thinking). It helps you seeding wise if the miracle of miracles happen and we make the NCAA Tournament, and if we have a good season it can keep us in the mix for the NIT (not likely, but still worth trying). Hofstra comes in at 92, so the CAA actually has two top 100 teams. Outside of the power conferences, the only ones who also two teams in the top 100 are: Conference USA: UAB - 51, N. Texas - 68, La. Tech - 87 MAAC: Monmouth - 46, Iona - 56 MAC: Ohio - 83, Buffalo - 95, Toledo - 98 Missouri Valley: Loyola (Chi.) - 16, Missouri State - 91 OVC - Belmont - 37, Murray State - 41 SoCon - Chattanooga - 43, Wofford - 73 WAC - Grand Canyon - 71, New Mexico State - 76, Utah Valley - 82, Abilene Christian - 96 WCC - Gonzaga 4, BYU 25, San Francisco 34, St. Mary's (Calif.) - 51, Santa Clara - 100 Yes, I know the WCC, Missouri Valley and Conference USA are in different stratosphere's as conferences. Also, it does drop off pretty quick after the top two in the CAA with the list going like this Delaware (138), James Madison (141), Charleston (157), Northeastern (182), Drexel (199), UNCW (294), Elon (324), William & Mary (350).

This is the type of solid mid-major matchup I am all for scheduling. Towson is still the top CAA team in the Net rankings at No. 77 (women's team is also top in CAA at No. 72). UNC Greensboro got absolutely thumped by Tennessee by 40 points on Saturday so I would imagine they will be locked in mentally and ready to shake that off. Surprisingly they are way down in the NET rankings at No. 222, but still seem to be a solid team.

Not totally related to this thread, but I saw the NET Rankings came out and we are No. 79. Hofstra is at 91 and Charleston is at 100. Not sure if James Madison had gotten credit for their win over Virginia yet (Virginia is 91 and James Madison is 151). As someone mentioned in one of the other threads our wins are not very good ones (the highest is New Mexico 152 and Kent State 199 is the only other one inside the top 200). However, two of our three losses are to teams in the top 45 (San Francisco 29 and Monmouth 42). I know it is early this does not mean much, but still good to see us this high. Everyone always talks about conference tournament or bust, and that ultimately needs to be the goal since making the NCAA Tournament is really main accomplishment we all want at this point. However, my general standard that I would like to hold coach to is to generally hover in that range 75-150 in terms of these rankings (obviously 75 would be better). When we are in that area to me it generally means we are playing at a solid to high level. I actually think it is embarrassing whenever this program finds itself outside of the top 200 in these rankings. That has obviously happened way to much in our past and somewhat recent history at times (when it was RPI).

I guess I would start off asking if anyone knows of Towson alum who have positions in the college athletics at different institutions that are at the Assistant AD level, followed by asking if there are any prominent senior associate ADs locally that people respect, followed by any corporate leaders that anyone thinks could fit the bill (since this has been small trend in some AD hirings recently), or any athletic departments regionally or nationally that people are impressed by who may have high level AD candidates that are realistic. I worked in college athletics in a different state and have known enough to fill in some of these blanks in the past, but I don't really know where to start with names anymore. I know this is pretty much the same type of questions others have, and some may even have more specific ideas. I really liked the background Mike Waddell had when he came here. I also liked his drive to make Towson more known in the community and try to raise the our brand profile. I did not necessarily like that he did that in a way that at least from the outside seemed somewhat financially reckless. That being said, he is the only AD since I started attending in Towson 1993 who thought outside of the box and really pursued a vision of raising the bar. Obviously as someone mentioned in the previous thread, someone with that kind of vision of Towson balanced with a little more fiscal prudence would be good. However, I realize that is very general and as was mentioned earlier the AD will fit in with the university's overall vision of what they want athletics to be moving forward.

I like doing the research so here is what I found. Bear in mind, I do try to be more of an optimist than a pessimist and it is worth noting that the front of our schedule was very difficult so rating us against some of the other FCS teams statistically is not exactly fair from an apples to apples standpoint. Still, this might the worst offensive season I can remember from a Rob Ambrose coached team to me (I am sure there are others on here that can correct this statement). Out of 123 listed FCS teams here is where we stand in some of the categories. Pass Offense - 76th (194.0 ypg) Rush Offense - 89th (124.7 ypg) Total Offense - 92nd (318.7 ypg) Scoring Offense - 89th (20.5 ppg) 3rd Down Conversions - -t-87th (34.5%) Passes Intercepted - 101st (12) First Down Offense - t-78th (176) Turnover Margin - t-79th (-2) Turnovers Lost - t-98th (18) Scoring Defense - t-57th (25.90) Third-Down Conversion Defense - 92nd (.424) Fewest Penalties Per Game - 55th (52.90 per game) - I was pleasantly surprised by this First Down Defense - t-70th (195) Turnovers Gained - t-53 (16) Again, I do not mean this to be negative. I tried to make this just an objective look at the stats. If there is something I left out, please share. I tried to capture as much as I could. To be fair, the site I looked at for strength of schedule listed us as 29 out of 128 (I know different than the 123 number the NCAA had for statistical rankings). https://www.warrennolan.com/football1aa/2021/stats-season-owp

I am in agreement with most of what I have read on here about last night's season opener. Very impressed with the transfers, particularly Terry Nolan Jr. who led the team with 17 points, also had five assists, and did it in a fairly efficient manner going 6-11 from the field. In fact, five different players (Nolan Jr. Holden, Rizzuto, Thompson and Gibson) took eight or more shots. It is rare during the Skerry or any Towson era that shot distribution has been that good. Timberlake had an off shooting night, and didn't feel compelled to keep shooting like last year. The main point I am making is guys like Thompson, Timberlake and Gibson, who felt like they had to play great to have any chance to win last year are now guys who can blend in, pick and choose opportunities, and not feel the need to force the offense. Those three are all very solid players, but none of them should be trying to take over games unless they are feeling it on a given night. They are just not those type of players. Now they can play to their strengths. There was also a flow to this team that we haven't see for a while at Towson. It was also nice to see an actual effective press and some pretty good team defense at times in the second half. I know this was an Albany team that is a middle-of-the-pack America East squad, but I would still say this was more of a case of Towson playing well (especially in the 2nd half) than Albany playing poorly (although their shooting was pretty bad in the second half). I know this is only one game, but it felt like a different type of Towson team. Finally I wanted to share a stat that I went back and found. This was the biggest margin in a season opener on the road by a Towson team since 1968 when we defeated Salisbury State 93-62. It is a stat that doesn't necessarily mean anything, but still pretty impressive.

My feeling last week was that we needed to win to assure ourselves that this season was not going to be a complete disaster. It was not exactly a convincing way to do that, but I feel like we have at least a couple of more wins in us this year (I would say at least 4). A win this weekend would let me to believe we can be a middle of the pack conference team and grab 5-6 wins this year. More importantly, it would set us up to have some bigger aspirations for the year. This arguably could be our toughest remaining home game, and if we have any desire to have a quality season I think we need to win all of those games (Albany and Elon remaining). If we can hold serve (for lack of a better term) at home, then we can see what we can accomplish on the road. Our earlier games against New Hampshire and San Diego State had their moments, but overall were not pretty and gave us a lot to build from. Same last week, but the important part is we found a way to win. I feel we will face a similar type of game this week. Hopefully we can limit the dumb penalties. not turn the ball over and do just enough on offense to give ourselves a chance to win. I know that is about as cliche as possible, but it is true.

I am on the bandwagon for a win next week, and we will see how that looks and go from there. So far Towson has been unimpressive, but just getting a conference win (ugly as it may be) is momentum. A win against Rhode Island at home could build more momentum and confidence. Heck, they went overtime at home against Stony Brook and barely beat Albany so it is not like they look unstoppable (even though the Delaware win was probably a huge confidence builder for them). I don't think we are very good, but James Madison really looks like the only completely unwinnable game left on our schedule. The rest are winnable if we start playing better, build some confidence, and gain momentum. All of those are big ifs, and we could be also easily finish 3-8. Sorry andy7171, I am on the bandwagon but my enthusiasm dwindled he more I typed. Still hoping for a good things this weekend. Go Tigers!

I think it is fair to have guarded optimism. These transfers are certainly one of the more accomplished groups we have brought into the program in recent memory based on what they did at their previous institutions. Skerry has also shown after bad seasons (2018-19 the notable exception) that he can generally navigate us back to decent results after losing conference seasons. We have had losing conference seasons in three of the last four years (after having winning conference seasons in four of the first six years), but 2019-20 was a good showing down the stretch and last year was hard to count against anyone in college hoops because it was so weird. The main elephants in the room are obviously Skerry's complete inability to do well in conference tournament play, most of his teams have been terrible shooting teams, in general they don't play a very aesthetically pleasing style, and he has had not really many (if any to speak of) signature non-conference victories. I realize that is a lot of elephants in one room. I just want to see this team re-establish the toughness that Skerry's teams have had that have led us to good regular-season conference success in thepast, and it would be nice if some of these new guys could breath life into what was a completely unwatchable and inefficient offense last year. I get the sense from some of what I have read that these transfers can fit in and be good leaders on this team, which is desperately needed after last year. This brings me back to the fact that I have guarded optimism that we could a solid CAA team this year.

Agreed, as far as I am concerned we have one game of real data to go off in terms of what we think will happen against Stony Brook. Morgan State's QB was a joke and our defense didn't have to do much to stop them (our offense wasn't very good in that game). I am not sure we would have beaten San Diego State or NDSU with the 2013 roster (and we are obviously long, long, long way from that talent level). We moved the ball fairly well against New Hampshire which was encouraging, but we had some really sloppy turnovers. The defense also whiffed quite a big on getting key stops. I don't think the Stony Brook game will tell us much about how good we are, but it sure could reveal how bad we are.