It takes some time, even with really good coaching
Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:45 pmWth apologies to JasonB on using this line in his post on another thread.
That said, the question is are we getting that?
The kind of talent that SMU is securing should always be better than the talent that Arkansas-Pine Bluff and UT-San Antonio are securing. Thus, SMU -- regardless of its youth factor -- should be winning these games. Period.
The fact that we are not winning these games is completely unacceptable. Matt Doherty talked about UTSA having better depth than the meeting last year. OK, fine. That doesn't matter. The game was in your building and you should have won. How come you didn't?
When the schedule came out, everybody looked at the UAPB and UTSA games as Ws without flinching. Well, the team flinched.
There is a problem with this program and I have hard time accepting the premise that this team will get better in the second half of CUSA play.
When you have so many problems in the post because Papa Dia has decided to take the DAMN year off, Mohammad Faye has turned into a 6-8 jump shooter, Bamba Fall is not an imposing presence because of his lack of playing the game for a long time and Frank Otis is still on training wheels, I don't see how any scoring balance will come.
Talented as they are, McCoy and Williams will be gassed by February and magic number for wins will be 8.
This is not what I call building a program. This is a mess.
Here's what we know:
1. At 3-7, SMU has the worst record among all CUSA teams and is looking at 5-7 to 3-9 before conference play begins. Is that what we expected?
2. Those 3 wins are against a Southern Conference school, Houston Baptist and A&M International. Exciting.
3. By year three, this is when your program should be making noteworthy strides. We're not even close to that.
4. How do we know that the rotation of 8 in the CUSA opener will not look completely different in the second game or the third or the fourth. Are we still going to make the excuse, "Well, he's still looking at different combinations.''
To me, my concerns with the Doherty era surfaced in the Tulsa home loss last year. After we scored the go-ahead bucket, Doherty didn't call a timeout with 6 seconds to go to set our defense. The result was a blown assignment and what turned out to be the coast-to-coast driving layup that gave Tulsa the win. I could live with Tulsa winning on a shot we defended. But we didn't even do that.
College basketball is a coaches game. It always has been. Your coach can make the difference so many times with management and understanding of personnel. That's why guys like Ben Howland moved up from Northern Arizona to Pitt to UCLA and why guys like Perry Clark are hanging on at A&M-CC.
If some of you people want to sit there and say, "Well, the team tried hard and looked better" and all this other crap in LOSSES against inferior competition, then our standards have certainly changed.
The SMU faithful has become complacent with losing and the apathy engulfing SMU athletics is the norm. I really wonder if the model will make that much of a difference.
That said, the question is are we getting that?
The kind of talent that SMU is securing should always be better than the talent that Arkansas-Pine Bluff and UT-San Antonio are securing. Thus, SMU -- regardless of its youth factor -- should be winning these games. Period.
The fact that we are not winning these games is completely unacceptable. Matt Doherty talked about UTSA having better depth than the meeting last year. OK, fine. That doesn't matter. The game was in your building and you should have won. How come you didn't?
When the schedule came out, everybody looked at the UAPB and UTSA games as Ws without flinching. Well, the team flinched.
There is a problem with this program and I have hard time accepting the premise that this team will get better in the second half of CUSA play.
When you have so many problems in the post because Papa Dia has decided to take the DAMN year off, Mohammad Faye has turned into a 6-8 jump shooter, Bamba Fall is not an imposing presence because of his lack of playing the game for a long time and Frank Otis is still on training wheels, I don't see how any scoring balance will come.
Talented as they are, McCoy and Williams will be gassed by February and magic number for wins will be 8.
This is not what I call building a program. This is a mess.
Here's what we know:
1. At 3-7, SMU has the worst record among all CUSA teams and is looking at 5-7 to 3-9 before conference play begins. Is that what we expected?
2. Those 3 wins are against a Southern Conference school, Houston Baptist and A&M International. Exciting.
3. By year three, this is when your program should be making noteworthy strides. We're not even close to that.
4. How do we know that the rotation of 8 in the CUSA opener will not look completely different in the second game or the third or the fourth. Are we still going to make the excuse, "Well, he's still looking at different combinations.''
To me, my concerns with the Doherty era surfaced in the Tulsa home loss last year. After we scored the go-ahead bucket, Doherty didn't call a timeout with 6 seconds to go to set our defense. The result was a blown assignment and what turned out to be the coast-to-coast driving layup that gave Tulsa the win. I could live with Tulsa winning on a shot we defended. But we didn't even do that.
College basketball is a coaches game. It always has been. Your coach can make the difference so many times with management and understanding of personnel. That's why guys like Ben Howland moved up from Northern Arizona to Pitt to UCLA and why guys like Perry Clark are hanging on at A&M-CC.
If some of you people want to sit there and say, "Well, the team tried hard and looked better" and all this other crap in LOSSES against inferior competition, then our standards have certainly changed.
The SMU faithful has become complacent with losing and the apathy engulfing SMU athletics is the norm. I really wonder if the model will make that much of a difference.