This is absolutely a young team. We have 2 major contributors who won't be around 2 years from now. And one of them is still hobbled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari Gold
This is absolutely a young team. We have 2 major contributors who won't be around 2 years from now. And one of them is still hobbled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari Gold
Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
I never said it was a veteran team. But having a 6th year Sr , a Soph, Rs Soph , and jr isn’t young. Yeah maybe they are young in game minutes ..
and again it’s women’s hoops.. it’s a totally different game .. you know when you are recruiting you will be getting them for 4 years unless they transfer... it’s a lot easier to build your roster and X and Os when you have that luxury.
Once again no knock on Vic.. he is an elite coach and one of Top 5 in women’s hoops.
Let’s just pump the brakes a little... it’s womens hoops..
Miss State women's basketball team is listed as #8 in the nation (NCAA Div 1) in forced turnovers per game. Forcing turnovers, getting out in transition, scoring off of turnovers.....big keys with this team. Even South Carolina was hard pressed to stay with this team under the heavy pressure and in transition game.
Again.....
Miss. State Women
#8 in NCAA Division 1 Women's Basketball in forced turnovers (21.84 per game).
Danberry is a FIFTH year senior. She graduated high school in 2015.
We are a young team. You would expect more contributions from your older players. But let's check our roster.
Points
63.4% scored by freshmen and sophomores
Rebounds
67.4% from freshmen and sophomores
Assists
66.8% from freshmen and sophomores
Steals
59.5% from freshmen and sophomores
Blocks
73.7% from freshmen and sophomores
Minutes
64.4% from freshmen and sophomores
So our youngest 2 classes are outperforming our oldest two classes by a 2:1 ratio. Anyone who says we aren't a young team is an idiot.
This is precisely why 3 of your 5 starters (and 6 of your top 9 contributors) being freshmen and sophomores is absolutely a young team.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari Gold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari Gold
Sorry you?re just wrong on this. Especially when you compare this group to how experienced the last three teams were. It?s absolutely a very young team. We have 12 active players and 8 are freshmen or sophomores and only one is a senior.
Does this count for the men too? 3 out of 5 starters underclassmen.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
Okay and?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari Gold
Not exactly, which is why that quote was in response to the specifics of women's basketball.Quote:
Originally Posted by THE Bruce Dickinson
One of our sophomores is almost certainly leaving after this year, and another could. Our junior PG could decide to just leave, regardless of the NBA. Someone could easily transfer.
These things happen far more often in men's basketball than in women's. Our men's team is technically young, but as it relates to the sport, it will likely look quite a bit different next year, so this year is more important. In women's basketball, our team is both technically young and also young as it relates to the sport. So it should continue to improve relative to its competition over the next couple years. So this year can be seen as the ground floor, whereas in men's it is potentially more of a peak.
I have no idea if it?s more or less common than the men?s game but MSU has had 2 or 3 in Vic?s tenure. I wouldn?t be surprised if this was the same for the top teams.
The only players gone for sure are carter and probably Perry. I would expect the rest back next season. If anyone does transfer it?s probably because they are tired of playing in front of an arena that?s a quarter full.
A few things to address in this thread:
You can have a young men's team (kentucky and duke come to mind) and it be a very different situation than the women. Because in the men's game, those 2 teams mentioned will never become a veteran team because they have too many early entries to the NBA. You don't have that in the women's game. In the women's game, great freshmen do become great seniors. In the men's game, great freshmen become early entries into the NBA. So comparing young men's teams to young women's teams is not a good comparison.
Also, I do expect some transfers from our program. But it is generally those lacking playing time that leave, not the big contributors. Most players leave in search of more playing time.
Yep, you never know. We lost Breamber Scott from last year and I'm starting to think we could have really used her. Plus she would have been one of our best 3 point shooters this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
Boom .. there’s what I was going for. Glad to see someone figured out what I was doing thereQuote:
Originally Posted by THE Bruce Dickinson
Schaefer is ahead of the curve in taking transfers in women's basketball. It's definitely not as common as in men's.Quote:
Originally Posted by THE Bruce Dickinson
And exactly, we will likely lose Perry this year...who happens to be clearly our best player. So instead of him being a sophomore, for the purposes of how 'young' we are, you should consider him a senior. And you should probably consider Woodard a junior. So instead of starting a junior, senior, sophomore, sophomore, junior (which is technically young but still not as young as our women's team), you could basically think of it as being junior, senior, junior, senior, junior in terms of how long we're likely to have them. So yeah....not a young team. And even then, our PG could always leave. The one we had last year did.
Then you did a terrible job of it. Because you cited the specifics of women's basketball that explain why our men's team is definitely not as young as our women's team...aside from the fact that our men's team isn't even technically as young as our women's team. You highlighted the argument against your stance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari Gold
If Rickea Jackson were likely to leave after this year, there would be far less talk about how young we are.
Of good to great upper class men on men?s basketball that develop over time. Comparing MSU to Kentucky and Duke is meaningless. We are never going to be them, period. Our fans shit on the men and give every benefit of the doubt to the women. Both teams are young, but that somehow doesn?t matter for the women and Vic, who by the way lost to a much lower ranked team in both the polls and player talent. They should have hustled more, or maybe the game has passed Vic by...who knows.
What are you talking about. Perry and Woodard have been playing basketball above a high school/ AAU level for one and a half years. NO DIFFERENT than the women sophomores. The simple fact that there is an actually demand for talented to players to leave for the pros as opposed to the women doesn?t somehow magically change their age.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
Because when people talk about how young a team is as a reason for fans to chill when criticizing, it's because over time, at least some of those problems will go away as the team gains more experience. Well, that is certainly more true for the women's team than for the men's team because the men's team won't be around as long. Also, the better teams we compete against on the men's side typically are also younger on average, since men don't stick around as long as women at the top. So a top women's team is likely to be older, on average, than a top men's team. So youth is more likely to be a legitimate excuse in women's basketball than men's. It's not that difficult.Quote:
Originally Posted by THE Bruce Dickinson
It you really need me to spell out the difference in the two, then here goes.Quote:
Originally Posted by THE Bruce Dickinson
First, our women's team, while young, will still be top 10 in the country after a loss. Our men's team, while 'young', is fighting to try to make the NCAA Tournament.
Second, our women's coach has made two national championship games in the last 3 years with this program. Doubting or questioning him seems extremely asinine. The same is not true of our men's coach. He has had success in the past, but it has been a long time, and he hasn't done it here.
Third, as I talked about in my last post, youth in the two sports isn't equivalent. 4 of our top 7 men's players are in their 1st or 2nd year (3 of those in their 2nd). The same is true of 6 of UK's top 8 players; 4 of LSU's top 5 players; 4 of OM's top 6 contributors; and 2 of Bama's top 3, 3 of their top 7. Auburn is a veteran team, but it's not like it's any sort of anomaly among our competition here. In women's basketball, that UK team we just lost to has 1 such player in their top 5 contributors and 2 in their top 8. SC is also a young team, but that's been noted by me numerous times. Our competition there tends to be older on average, yet we are even younger there than our men's team, not to mention that our players there will stick around longer than our men's team.
So our men's team is not as young relative to its competition or relative to how long they'll stick around. And the women's team is much better relative to its competition and with a coach who should be questioned less. How could someone look at these two teams and think they should be viewed similarly? One is worlds better right now and is far more likely to continue improving over the next couple years.
I?ll address these one by one.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
First, the girls are good and I?m glad they are good but there is an INCREDIBLE gap in parity between the men?s and women?s game. Any given year for the women there are probably 6 teams that have a legitimate shot at winning the title- some years less than that. This is evident when looking back at women?s NCAA champions over the last 30 years. A 1 or 2 seed wins it. No exceptions. For the men there are probably about 30 teams that can legitimately win if they get hit at the right time. See Auburn last season.
The criticism of Vic was obviously sarcasm. I was just mimicking what people spew on this board about Howland after any men?s loss, and sometimes even wins too.
Lastly your estimate in the men?s game being much younger than the women?s game may be slightly true but you are grossly overestimating that gap. There are 347 division one basketball teams with 13 scholarship players per team. There are 60 NBA draft picks consisting of both college players and international players. So every year the NBA draft depletes around 1% of college talent if all picks are out of American colleges. That?s not nearly as drastic at lowering the age of college as you make it out to be. The teams that have the big age gaps are the elite programs like UK,UNC,Kansas, Duke etc. We will never be these teams. Your argument really doesn?t hold water.
Obviously most of those 347 schools don't have to worry about the early entrants hardly ever. We compete with schools who do. And last year, there were 100 early entrants who did not withdraw. We saw it with Lamar Peters. You're not just dealing with kids who are drafted, you're dealing with a good bit more who are also just leaving school regardless of whether they're drafted or not. We may not be the teams who are losing a bunch of kids to the draft, but we are competing against at least some of them. And we see it this year - when we do get an elite talent, we won't have them long. Without Perry this year, we are garbage. Well, he probably won't be around next year. That consideration is involved in any analysis of this year's team. (ETA - looked it up, and the SEC had 14 of them, only 3 of whom were from Kentucky. It absolutely impacts our league.)Quote:
Originally Posted by THE Bruce Dickinson
And yes, obviously the men's game and women's game are different. But I'm not sure how that changes this discussion. You could use it as an even further argument to Schaefer's greatness because he has broken that barrier and put us among the very few in the women's game. Tell me the last time our men's team had any sort of real, legitimate chance to make a run.
The differences are clear. So when people talk about our women's team being young, they're right, and that has a big impact. The reason they don't focus on that as much with our men's team (and some have brought it up, btw) is because that is not a reason for as much optimism there, for a bunch of different reasons.
My argument does hold water. I never said we would be Duke or Kentucky. What I am saying is that if Duke starts 5 true freshmen McDonalds AA, then they are clearly a very young team. However, they will never become a veteran team, because those 5 players will skip to the NBA before they can become a veteran team. However, if UConn Women start 5 true freshmen McDonalds AA, then they are also a very young team. However, they will have a chance to become a veteran team as those players age, because they don't leave early.Quote:
Originally Posted by THE Bruce Dickinson
So Rickea Jackson has a chance to be a junior or senior star. Zion Williamson was never going to be a junior or senior star.
This is such a dumb stance ari and Bruce are taking.
What matters isnt the LITERAL AGE of the players, what matters for how "young" the team is is how much longer they will be here.
Perry is a So, but hes not going to be here next year. A womens BB player that's a Jr will be here next year.
This isnt a complicated thing to understand. It like saying a JuCo team of all Sophomores is as "young" as a State team of So would be...
And ari, when Howland gets us to 4 straight sweet 16s with 2 national championship appearances THEN you can use bad games by Vics teams to excuse the bad play of Howlands. But nobody would be upset by a bad mens loss at that point.
Saying "our women played bad vs an inferior team yet you dont freak out like you when the mens teams play bad" is like saying moorhead deserved another year because we gave Mullen another one after '16. Mullen had proved himself, Moorhead had not.
Bruce, all you're doing is intentionally misconstruing others arguments and making logical leaps of your own. Debate honestly or not at all
Well done Bruce .. Well done.
I started this thread and will now end it."....Vic is the best coach in any sport in MSU history. End of story!
There is nothing dishonest about what I am writing. I am simply pointing out the the double standards of this board when comparing the same flaws between the men's and women's basketball teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by the_real_MSU_is_us
It's perfectly accepted to say the women are young as an excuse when they lose to an inferior team, but saying the same thing about the men is apparently absurd.
It's been explained why this happens. If you don't understand it, fine. But there is a perfectly acceptable explanation for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by THE Bruce Dickinson
Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
The explanation is completely flawed and I showed that. The real explanation is that our fans give the women a pass, and always shit on the men's team.
The inferior team on the women's side was ranked 18th. That's all you need to know. That's why they're given a 'pass'.
If our men's team was ranked 6th, I would agree it would be insane to criticize them much.
1) the womens team has earned the benefit of the doubt. Mens team hasnt earned shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by THE Bruce Dickinson
2) womens team lost to a team ranked 12 spots lower than them and routinely competes with the top teams in the country. Mens team loses to teams who are ranked farther away than that, and never gets any major upsets. Of course people dont hold a loss against the women like they do the men, the 2 situations are completely different.
3) womens team is younger than the mens. It just is. Men will get 3 more from Stuart, 3 more from Molinar, 1 more from Ado, maybe 1 more from Nick, Maybe 1 more from Woodard, 0 more from Perry. The mens team already had more game experience than the womens does too.
Vic has a record of having players improve as they play and mature over their career. To me, this is the biggest indicator of the disparity between the men's and women's basketball programs in Starkville.