Tiger93

42 minutes ago, TuTigers2012 said:

Not a personal attack. You are more towards the middle, but saying people aren’t happy with a winning season or 20 wins, is just false. Not saying it was you.  I’m not digging that far back but two years ago there were a few posters that would rather 27-5 and a first round exit than 15-19, a CAAT championship and a trip to the tournament

I too hope that we get to the point where we talk about dancing rather than 18 and 19^ (no asterisks here only carrots!) wins

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.  

2 hours ago, TuTigers2012 said:

Completely understand what you’re saying.  But being ok with 1 for 3 and not making that next “jump”, is the problem.  “Hey it could be worse”. Yes it could. But sure as hell could be better, ask every team in our league whose played for a chance to go to the tournament in the past 10 years 

 

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. 

2 hours ago, TSU88 said:

There are at least two posters who have recently posted, either explicitly or implicitly, that 20 W’s is a sign of success, regardless of how we do in the postseason.I’lll thank you to do your research better moving forward before you accuse me of making things up & putting words in peoples mouths 

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. 

44 minutes ago, TSU88 said:

And while I’m at it, to those who worship at the altar of a 20 W season, 6 out the 14 schools in the conference (I wasn’t a math major, but I believe that’s close to half) finished with 20 or more W’s; 1 school finished with 19, and another with 18.

So, while 20 W’s is nice, it’s not the gold standard some make it out to be. Does it beat winning 12-13 games? Of course. But in and of itself, it’s of little significance if not part of a regular season crown 👑 or conference tournament title 

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. 

54 minutes ago, TSU88 said:

This debate, if there really is on, on the importance of OOC games and regular season conference games, is mildly amusing to me. OOC games are only important to the extent that they put $ in our coffers and perhaps get the team ready for conference play. Regular season conference games are important to the extent of determining tournament seeding. But, to mix metaphors, you play for show, you putt for dough. Meaning, that at the end of the day, in a 1-bid league, it really does boil down to 3-5 days in March, notwithstanding where you finish in the regular season 

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. 

On 3/30/2024 at 10:43 AM, Tgr4life said:

38-16 is equal to the Orioles dominating Spring Training....just something meaningless to talk about

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. 

On 3/30/2024 at 10:43 AM, Tgr4life said:

38-16 is equal to the Orioles dominating Spring Training....just something meaningless to talk about

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. 

7 minutes ago, TuTigers2012 said:

Obviously the talent level is drastic, but it doesn't even look like the same sport. Very entertaining.

Fun fact, Alabama AVERAGES 6 more points a game, than our highest output on the year!

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. 

3 hours ago, TuTigers2012 said:

Agree.  

 

I’m not advocating for fully playing the way Alabama and Charleston play but watching that game and last nights Bama Unc game, the offense is quick and free flowing. Such a breathe of fresh air from what we do.  Of course it’s about the Jimmys and joes too, but should be able to play without running 22 seconds of clock before getting into our offense for an iffy look at best 

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. 

16 minutes ago, TuTigers2012 said:

😂Exactly. That graphic just really shows how bad basketball is around here.

But what do you expect, when people are still talking about what if's from a decade+ ago, and blaming Pat Kennedy still.  Watch, next it'll be "third best record in CAA play last three season (In small print, not including CAAT, when you know it counts), or back to back to back to back 18 wins season (If you don't include covid and any other seasons that arbitrarily don't count!)

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. 

28 minutes ago, TuTigers2012 said:

I don't think anyone on here said it was a sure thing, easier or that it will always work out.  It won't but that doesn't mean you can be afraid to make a change and go out of your comfort zone (SOT mentality).  We know what we have and it's fine, average, some good seasons.  If you aren't willing to risk it all, the reward is much smaller.  UNCW is successful, but has many bad hires in between the good (Benny and Buzz after Brownell, and C.B. after Keatts). But they are willing to cut their mistakes and move on, quickly. 

There is no reason a coach at Towson University should stay for 10+ years. But yet, until last year we had three with Ambrose, Skerry and Nadaline. They should either win and move or on lose and be fired. Middling "success" leading to no other opportunities equates to stagnate status quo. The fact that they were not on short term contracts, is mind boggling.  Hopefully athletics knows, you can place buy outs in contracts..  

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. 

18 hours ago, TSU88 said:

At the risk of getting excoriated by 1 or 2 people on the board, this is the natural evolution of things. Kelsey stayed a few years at C of C, got them to the tournament 2X, used C of C as a lily pad to a bigger job. And C of C will simply go out and try to get the next Kelsey. Rinse, wash, repeat. 

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. 

18 hours ago, TuTigers2012 said:

Marshall fired D’antoni coming off a 24 win season last year and a very good career record!  He’s also an alum! They want to win!

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. 

3 minutes ago, TuTigers2012 said:

Some of you defenders are ridiculous.

Kampe has made 4 tourneys in their 24 years of D1, including 3 in the first 12.  Skerry has 0 in his first 13.  He also makes significantly less money than Skerry.

Larranaga made it in his second season at Mason, and another 4 times in his 14 years... in a much more difficult conference. Add in he had just one losing season (and CAA losing) season, his first year.

James Jones, Ivy league so it's totally different. Until the last few years (when they've made the dance), you needed to win the league to get in, now its a 4 team tournament. Much easier and hence the success.

Everyone always bring up that 2012-13 team and says they would have won it. What makes you say that?  Were they good? Yes.  Were they peaking at the right time? Yes.  Was the league weak? Yes.  But we have seen that story before (about 12 other times), the choking when the pressure is on.  Playing hypotheticals and what if's don't count, sorry.

We all support the team. And the most vocal ones about change, are actually the ones who support them more (sans one or two). We see what the issues are first hand.  88, Royal, myself all have and had season tickets. I've been to more road games in 16 years than most people have been to home games combined. I donate to the TAF with an emphasis on the hoops program.  Being a .510 career coach just shouldn't cut it anymore in year 13+

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. 

9 minutes ago, BK_Brian said:

Some of you guys are ridiculous, but its the same thing year after year.  Look at Oakland University and Greg Kampe.  He began his career at Oakland in 1984 (granted they were D2 at the time) and he was at the school for 21 years and they first made the Tourney in 2005.  They have now made it 4 times in the last 20 years.

Jim Larranga was a head coach for 13 seasons (btwn Bowling Green and GM) before one of his teams first qualified for the Tourney.  His GM team then made it to the Tourney 5 times in the next 13 seasons before he left for Miami.

James Jones of Yale, his first season was 99-00 and in his 17th season his team first qualified.  His team has now made the Tourney 4 of the last 8 seasons.

In Pat's 13 seasons we have not yet made the Tourney, but that 2012-2013 team was good and I bet would have won the conference tournament had it not been for Pat Kennedy and the shit show we had in place before Skerry.  For Skerry's 13 seasons at TU (including that first one) we've had a winning record 9 of 13 seasons.  When we have good players they generally stay in the program and don't transfer out at the first opportunity.  Moreover, this year we have two players on the all-rookie team.  

What I'm trying to say is that good things come to those who wait.  He's been putting a pretty consistent/competitive team out on the Court and our time will come.  Skerry has made this team semi-relevant and he's the reason I actually care about TU sports again. (I graduated in 1999.)  Let the man work and support the fing team.

  

 

 

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. 

2 hours ago, mat1992 said:

Conference tournaments are here to stay ($$$). Maybe it will be altered at some point. Limit the amount of teams in, etc. But there's no direction in college basketball so it's a free-for-all.

I think the conference tournament week and a half is every bit as fun in not more as the NCAA Tournament for college basketball purists, except when Towson disappoints us. However, I would question the amount of overall money/ratings/eyeballs these conference tournaments make for anyone but the power conferences and a select few conferences.

At this point, I think they are mostly used as a narrative onramp for the NCAA Tournament, which not surprisingly hurts the smaller conferences. I enjoy the conference tournament element, but I also think it would be better for the sport to send the team that is the best the entire year to represent the conference. That being said, I still think conference tournaments are fun and I enjoy it being part of the unique personality of college basketball. I am just always suspicious anyone who tells me that they don't want to get rid of something college sports because of the money. It is also generally a pyramid scheme that only benefits a smaller (and increasingly more elite) group of programs. 

On 3/13/2024 at 3:09 PM, TuTigers2012 said:

Avert your eyes Tigers Fans (at least to the ones that don't already have their heads in the sand about this program). Had some extra time in the office today and did some stat digging.  Some of these are depressing and mind numbing.

There have been some nice comeback wins along the way, and I am sure the Pat supporters will post them (Hope you do!), but this is about the blown leads, close losses, almost had it, and what should have been. 

From the last few regular seasons.  ^^ (because we can't do asterisks on here!)  is the highest % in the second half, not always at time of biggest lead.

 

CAA Tournament Losses (All 11)  ^^ (Again no asterisks here!) Does Not Include 2020/2021 COVID Game. That was a blow out the entire game.

 

In our CAAT Games since Benimon we have scored:

56, 66, 67, 86, 72, 68, 56, 48, 62, 73, 66, 59, 82, 60, 69^    ^OT game, 62 in Regulation.  More games under 57 then over 81... We can have the best defense around, but with scoring numbers like those, you aren't going to win multiple games many times. 

I was on vacation last week and didn't get a chance to post much in the aftermath of our loss. Great job collecting all of this in one place! I find it interested that 16 of these came in what has been a pretty good regular-season run for the program the last three years, and it leads to my biggest criticism even more than not making the tournament which is the struggle to meet the moment with so many opportunity for big program wins in the regular-season (where the pressure should be less).

I know we mostly focus on the tournament, but wins at Hofstra and vs. Wake Forest this year, too many to count last year (Navy, at Wake, at Hofstra, at Drexel, at Charleston) and at Pitt, at Drexel and USF in 2021-22 could have done a lot for the program or conference results in all of those years and we weren't able to close it out. Honestly, I would have to imagine even Skerry would admit fault to the amount of times we just haven't gotten over the hump (although I don't now what that would accomplish. 

Like most stats, I would have to see the other end of this with some of the comebacks, good performances, and how this stacks up with the Hofstras, Drexels and Wilmingtons of the world who have pulled their number of choke jobs during this stretch too. However, all of those teams definitely have more breakthrough (quality non-conference wins) than us. As you said, it is up to the people who care to defend Skerry to come up with the other end of the argument. I am somewhere in the middle so I may or may not take the bait to do that. 

TGCP, thanks for bringing up the Maryland game. That has definitely been lost in time, but there were some good moments in that game. I think what has been so frustrating during the Skerry era is there are so many moments during the game where he makes you proud of the team/program, but not nearly as many actual results that do the same.

It is impossible not to be hugely disappointed in the way the Charleston game ended last week. Playing not to lose is an understatement. I know I will get panned for this opinion, but I do see a little progress in the way this team has played effort-wise the last two tournaments as opposed to some of the complete no-shows that happened previously.

It still isn't good enough, but I do think there is ever so-slight progress. What it amounts to I have no idea (I am sure most on here have a more definitive opinion that I can't really argue).

The really frustrating part to me is this was not a great Charleston team (maybe I will be proven wrong in the NCAA Tournament and the conference can finally win a game), but Towson was better on the day and once again that was not represented in the final score. To your original point, and you will get no argument from me, even though we have been good we haven't closed the door against good teams when it matters very much under Skerry.  

25 minutes ago, Bay Area Tiger said:

net doesn’t matter.  KenPom too. 
I watched a ton of Pac 12 games.  Weak conference.  
College selection is broken. 
 

I am Big East through and through, but outside of UConn, Marquette and Creighton that conference wasn't any better than the Pac-12. The Pitino act of being God's gift to basketball and feeling like he is owed a bid is BS. I have no doubt he will load up next year, and be a top 15-20 team, but he doesn't deserve to be there this year and the sour grapes routine of not accepting an NIT big is ridiculous. He doesn't have to do it, but to me you are spitting on the history of the tournament so you can get ahead of the NIL chase for a week or so. As much as it is annoying, he is probably right and the NIL movement shouldn't be allowed until the day after the National Title game. 

Just to follow up on an earlier point. Here are the conference road records (who teams lost to in road CAA play), overall road records, neutral-site records and strength of schedule for the top eight teams. 

                          Conf. Road Rec          Road Record         Neutral Site     KenPom SOS
Charleston           8-1                           10-2                     1-3                210                    lost at UNCW
Drexel                 4-5                           6-10                     1-0                176                    lost at Towson, at Monmouth, at UNC-W, at Charleston, at Hofstra
Hofstra                4-5                            5-9                      3-1                60                     lost at Northeastern, at Campbell, at Monmouth, at Drexel, at Charleston
UNC-W                5-4                           10-6                     1-1                46                     lost at Drexel, at Towson, at Stony Brook, at Campbell
Towson                4-5                           6-6                      0-5                154                   lost at Monmouth, at Northeastern, at Hofstra, at Hampton, at UNC-W  
Delaware             4-5                            8-6                      2-2                236                  lost at Hofstra, at UNC-W, at Drexel, at Elon, at Stony Brook
Monmouth           1-8                            2-13                    2-0                142                  lost at UNC-W, at Charleston, at Drexel, at Stony Brook, at Delaware,
                                                                                                                                 at Northeastern, at Towson, at Hampton
Stony Brook         3-6                            4-11                    0-0                188                  lost at Towson, at Delaware, at Hofstra, at Campbell, at Monmouth, at Drexel

Jumped the gun and thought those were the real teams. Hopefully, our freshmen get those honors. That would be great. 

1 hour ago, TuTigers2012 said:

Flo only until Monday. 

Agree. Can win some, but also can very well lose the first. Think it’s way more likely we lose Saturday then beat uncw on very short rest.

you bring up home records, we are 0-5 in neutral floor games 

The neutral-site record is a fair point, but those games all happened a long time ago. You can throw Houston out of the window because we aren't playing anyone near their caliber in this tournament. I would say Wake is probably better than anyone we will play too, although the lack of being able to close that game has some relevance to the type of team we are and have been in the past. North Texas was a just a complete no-show, which I suppose could happen but I don't think it will. South Dakota State was essentially a road game, and we are the closest team to this site. Of course, we know that won't stop UNC-W or Charleston from outnumbering us if we play them. I don't know even know how to categorize that absurdity that was the Bryant game.

I honestly feel like our road performance in the CAA is a better data point than our overall neutral site record, and of course that isn't very good either. UNC-W was also only 5-4 in conference play on the road (we were 4-5). I think this whole conference (other than probably Charleston) is crap away from home. Towson and UNC-W had the marquee road wins at Charleston, but both happened over a month ago and both teams have scuffled at times recently. 

11 minutes ago, Blounge said:

I put $1 on CofC and UNCW

Is the Saturday slate of tournament games Flosports only?

That makes some sense. You are basically betting on the winner of CofC/UNCW. I really have no idea what to expect from Towson, but something tells me we can take down UNCW in the quarters. Our style and poor shooting also leaves us vulnerable to keeping a game against William & Mary or NC A&T closer than it should be (although as TUTigers2012 pointed it earlier this week and as it played out, it feels like NC A&T is a good matchup for our strengths). 

I have confidence in this team to beat anyone in this conference outside of Charleston right now (we haven't been able to beat them the last two seasons when the chips were really on the table, not to take anything away form an impressive win early this season) in a one game setting. However, as we mentioned all year long I don't have confidence that they can close out a tight game against one of the top teams or that they can put together 2-3 good performances in a row (two has been hard enough).

I think we can be overly negative at times on the micro of this team on this board. They have played well at times (UMass, at Charleston, UNC-W at home and a decent amount of the home slate). The macro part of it is where much of the negativity is deserved. I don't seen any evidence that we are consistent enough to accomplish the goal we all want to see, and we are probably right where we are every March. I could have summoned more optimism if we only needed two wins to get to the conference tournament final, but the combination of needing four to win it and three to get to the final, along with being stuck on Charleston's side of the bracket makes it tough to be overly optimistic.

Still, this the third segment of the season. I would give us a C in non-conference. The UMass win probably moves it from D+ to C or so. I would say B- in conference play. The Hampton loss, which ultimately cost us the bye takes it down from a B. I think we need to wait until the conference tournament happens to judge overall. Even though I think we all have a sense for what is coming.  

I actually thought last year was one of our better conference tournament efforts from start to finish, but as usual it wasn't good enough. It might have been the most consistent level we have played at in the conference tournament under Skerry. Still, I have no argument for the lack of results in the CAA Tournament, which haunts this coach, this program and all of us fans. I just try to wipe the slate clean every March and bring us much positivity as I can to each one of these games. Once we find out who we play on Friday, Saturday's game is the business at hand and so so on. 

On 3/3/2024 at 2:23 AM, TuTigers2012 said:

There’s 4 teams that can win it. 1-4 seeds. Tigers have 0 chance.  4-11 soon to be 4-12

DraftKings Odds are:

Charleston +225
Hofstra +280
UNCW +380
Drexel +380
Towson +950
Delaware +1300
Stony Brook +3000
Monmouth +3500
Northeastern +5000
Campbell +25000
William & Mary+50000
NC A&T +50000
Hampton +50000
Elon +50000

I honestly would be surprised if anyone other than Charleston won, although I suppose UNCW would take issue having beaten them twice. That being said, we are over a month removed from those results and Charleston seems to have hit a different gear since almost losing to William & Mary on February 3.

I didn't see any of our game against UNC-W, but it sounded very familiar. I will say that this team is capable of not showing up on Friday, but also very capable of taking down UNC-W to get to the semis. Past that it seems like a pretty tall order.

I think we are just as good as anyone outside of Charleston, but playing the extra game obviously makes a difference. Especially since we have a hard time stringing two good games in a row together led alone four. I only heard about Charles Thompsoson's headbutt so I don't want to comment on any part of it. Is there any sense if there will be any fallout in terms of suspensions for the conference tournament? 

Feels like a game we can ugly up and win, but hard to imagine us doing something like what we did against Charleston. It would be nice to get a good offensive performance and a win heading into the tournament, but that seems like it will be really tough so I will take a win in whatever form it comes in tomorrow.

I knew 2-2 was a given in our final four games, but 3-1 will be tough to get to. 

UNC-W -5.5 seems 1-2 points too high, but hard to know what to expect offensively on the road. We won’t be able to get away with Trazerien White lighting us up like he did in the first meeting.

56 minutes ago, TuTigers2012 said:

Also regarding the game 12.5 is a huge number. Looks like Aggies have a high volume shooter with 21.5 ppg (players can average thaT much?!) and shoot a lot of threes and don’t rebound. 

That seems like a good combo for Towson to actually look like a team that can score for a night. I expect a knock-down-drag it out affair on Saturday at UNC-W much like last year, but this game might be similar to Monmouth last week in the sense that we look better for one night before going back to the mean of what our offense has generally been for most of the year.