I don't know, but maybe CofC, Elon and UNCW being close is a draw. Plus, CAA is a really good FCS conference.

(11-08-2021 12:54 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Mullet is right.

CAA has been trying to get Furman and other SoCon schools since Richmond left.

Why would they join now at the CAA's weakest point after 20 years of thanks but no thanks?

The CAA is a stronger football conference but possibly was not motivated sufficiently to make happen. Hopefully they are now.

As for MBB the driving force would be to create a better conference for all the schools joining but quite frankly that is a our weakness that we need to fix along with a regional misalignment of schools remaining.

(11-08-2021 01:33 PM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 11:55 AM)jumpinmullet Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 09:27 AM)wmmii Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 08:48 AM)jumpinmullet Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 07:47 AM)wmmii Wrote:  Football is the biggest attraction the CAA has in recognition today to attract new members and needs to use that as a tool to rebuild our MBB reputation.

Richmond, Elon plus W&M have been left out on an island for football along with UNCW, CoC, Elon and W&M for all sports. For the CAA to survive it needs two divisions.

While doing this the CAA needs to rebuild its MBB reputation by adding good MBB teams to join like Vermont if we setup a North Division plus 2-3 Southern schools from this list:

Furman
Wofford
ETSU
UNCG
Winthrop

I understand your point and I agree with it . My questin is why on Earth would those schools move to the CAA ? It makes less than zero sense for them to change and go sideways or down as a basketball program . I would be really surprised if any of these schools join the CAA ,

Football is often the key for conference movement and is the biggest fundraiser at these schools. Need to us this asset to attract schools that also offer good MBB.

I also hear that but these football programs average less than 10,000 fans per game and it just does not seem to add up to me . Maybe it is just a football mentality without the money to back it up . It seems to me that college football is something on a downward treand at this level and schools would be looking to drop it in the future .

Look at how much money the boosters raise at football vs. Non football and you will see a huge discrepancy.

I would like to see those numbers because just based on 6 home football games per year at 6500 fans I can't see how football makes any sense at all to schools at this level . JMU averaged the most in the CAA by far but the rest are not close to 10K per game and the cost of a football program is astronomical compared to basketball .

(11-08-2021 01:39 PM)wmmii Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 12:54 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Mullet is right.

CAA has been trying to get Furman and other SoCon schools since Richmond left.

Why would they join now at the CAA's weakest point after 20 years of thanks but no thanks?

The CAA is a stronger football conference but possibly was not motivated sufficiently to make happen. Hopefully they are now.

As for MBB the driving force would be to create a better conference for all the schools joining but quite frankly that is a our weakness that we need to fix along with a regional misalignment of schools remaining.

To me there are 4 reasons to move to a different conference
Competitive discrepancy
Academic prestige
Media payout
Travel Savings

I dont see how the CAA trumps the SoCon on the scorecard for any incumbent SoCon school enough to justify paying a $1M SoCon exit fee

How about a public / private swap? UNCG, WCU, ETSU and UTC move to the CAA. W&M (I know it is public), Elon and UR (football) to SoCon. Academies are public but stay in the SoCon.

(11-08-2021 02:39 PM)Clueless Economist Wrote:  How about a public / private swap? UNCG, WCU, ETSU and UTC move to the CAA. W&M (I know it is public), Elon and UR (football) to SoCon. Academies are public but stay in the SoCon.

UTC is going elsewhere. Unless they've changed their mind.

Where would UTC go?

(11-08-2021 02:39 PM)Clueless Economist Wrote:  How about a public / private swap? UNCG, WCU, ETSU and UTC move to the CAA. W&M (I know it is public), Elon and UR (football) to SoCon. Academies are public but stay in the SoCon.

A good backup plan for W&M.

This was my starting team from the start and I think we can win with it. Just change out Okauru and Oglesby. I am really feeling good about Kelly as our big man in the middle. Really active, runs the court well and alters shots.

Pg- Phillps/Thomas
2 - Okauru/Oglesby
3 - Sims/Harvey
4 - Baker/Samb
5 - Kelly/Samb

(11-12-2021 08:03 PM)82hawk Wrote:  This was my starting team from the start and I think we can win with it. Just change out Okauru and Oglesby. I am really feeling good about Kelly as our big man in the middle. Really active, runs the court well and alters shots.

Pg- Phillps/Thomas
2 - Okauru/Oglesby
3 - Sims/Harvey
4 - Baker/Samb
5 - Kelly/Samb

Oglesby doesn’t even need to be in the rotation right now. He’s a launch pad, and takes terrible shots


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(11-12-2021 09:10 PM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 08:03 PM)82hawk Wrote:  This was my starting team from the start and I think we can win with it. Just change out Okauru and Oglesby. I am really feeling good about Kelly as our big man in the middle. Really active, runs the court well and alters shots.

Pg- Phillps/Thomas
2 - Okauru/Oglesby
3 - Sims/Harvey
4 - Baker/Samb
5 - Kelly/Samb

Oglesby doesn’t even need to be in the rotation right now. He’s a launch pad, and takes terrible shots


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True. Okauru can score but he has got to start drving and stop shooting threes.

(11-12-2021 09:10 PM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  Oglesby doesn’t even need to be in the rotation right now. He’s a launch pad, and takes terrible shots

Hard to see who our "dagger" shooter is at this point. Ogelsby might start really dropping them, but so far has launched a whole lot more than he has landed.

(11-12-2021 09:32 PM)70shawk Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 09:10 PM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  Oglesby doesn’t even need to be in the rotation right now. He’s a launch pad, and takes terrible shots

Hard to see who our "dagger" shooter is at this point. Ogelsby might start really dropping them, but so far has launched a whole lot more than he has landed.

Good shooters shoot, I get that. But some of his misses have been flat ugly, which makes me question is he really a good shooter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(11-12-2021 09:34 PM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 09:32 PM)70shawk Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 09:10 PM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  Oglesby doesn’t even need to be in the rotation right now. He’s a launch pad, and takes terrible shots

Hard to see who our "dagger" shooter is at this point. Ogelsby might start really dropping them, but so far has launched a whole lot more than he has landed.

Good shooters shoot, I get that. But some of his misses have been flat ugly, which makes me question is he really a good shooter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Apparently he is in practice. In the first two games, not so much. Maybe he will surprise us and start draining them. Soon would be good....

(11-12-2021 09:42 PM)70shawk Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 09:34 PM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 09:32 PM)70shawk Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 09:10 PM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  Oglesby doesn’t even need to be in the rotation right now. He’s a launch pad, and takes terrible shots

Hard to see who our "dagger" shooter is at this point. Ogelsby might start really dropping them, but so far has launched a whole lot more than he has landed.

Good shooters shoot, I get that. But some of his misses have been flat ugly, which makes me question is he really a good shooter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Apparently he is in practice. In the first two games, not so much. Maybe he will surprise us and start draining them. Soon would be good....

I'm a good three point shooter in practice too lol but when you get out on the floor it's a whole new ballgame. haha. You can usually tell when someone will turn it around because they are close, rattle a few etc, but some of his misses have been flat out ugly. That's my concern. I'd love to come back to this post later and be wrong.

Furman best Louisville tonight
Citadel beat Pitt the other night

SoCon 12-5 so far
CAA 6-8

(11-12-2021 09:32 PM)70shawk Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 09:10 PM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  Oglesby doesn’t even need to be in the rotation right now. He’s a launch pad, and takes terrible shots

Hard to see who our "dagger" shooter is at this point. Ogelsby might start really dropping them, but so far has launched a whole lot more than he has landed.

Oglesby seems like a "matter of time" player to me.
He shot 43% from three at Cleveland State going 26-60. He was also a good three point shooter in HS. Three point shooting isn't the kind of thing that suddenly disappears. The most glaring thing I see is that he is shooting the ball really fast when he receives the ball, and never sets his feet.

None of the players who remained from last year are above average three point shooters besides Sims. I think Siddle was really counting on Oglesby to be the other three point threat beyond Sims and was also counting on McCracken and Fornes, so no real additional threats beyond Fornes yet.

The biggest problem I see is we are playing a few guys out of their best position.

Sims is not a four, he's a three. When you play a four guard offense, the mismatch of a big guard being able to drive and score against a bigger, slower four is the advantage. The problem is that Sims can't drive and score against a big man and he has a hard time shooting over a big man outside. His primary offense is from three, and he can also hit jumpers inside the three. But he is not a drive and finish guy at all.

Baker is a four, not a five. His inside game is almost non existent. He likes to start his offense on the perimeter, not in the post. He also is not big enough at 205lbs. to establish position in the post to rebound and score.

Those are our two glaring problems. The solution is to start Kelly at the five, Baker at the four and Sims at the three. We can sub in White for Baker and Saamb or McGriff for Kelly. And we have plenty of guards to sub in for Sims at the three.

Sims can shoot over the typical three and can hit the boards with a size advantage Kelly is obviously our best post player on offense and defense. And Baker at the four can attack from outside and help on the baords with Kelly and Sims.

(11-13-2021 08:50 AM)82hawk Wrote:  The biggest problem I see is we are playing a few guys out of their best position.

Sims is not a four, he's a three. When you play a four guard offense, the mismatch of a big guard being able to drive and score against a bigger, slower four is the advantage. The problem is that Sims can't drive and score against a big man and he has a hard time shooting over a big man outside. His primary offense is from three, and he can also hit jumpers inside the three. But he is not a drive and finish guy at all.

Baker is a four, not a five. His inside game is almost non existent. He likes to start his offense on the perimeter, not in the post. He also is not big enough at 205lbs. to establish position in the post to rebound and score.

Those are our two glaring problems. The solution is to start Kelly at the five, Baker at the four and Sims at the three. We can sub in White for Baker and Saamb or McGriff for Kelly. And we have plenty of guards to sub in for Sims at the three.

Sims can shoot over the typical three and can hit the boards with a size advantage Kelly is obviously our best post player on offense and defense. And Baker at the four can attack from outside and help on the baords with Kelly and Sims.

So the solution is to start Baker, and Kelly and this coming form a guy that said that we always play 4 guards? You walking that back now? I don't disagree with you just pointing out the change in tone.

(11-13-2021 08:53 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  

(11-13-2021 08:50 AM)82hawk Wrote:  The biggest problem I see is we are playing a few guys out of their best position.

Sims is not a four, he's a three. When you play a four guard offense, the mismatch of a big guard being able to drive and score against a bigger, slower four is the advantage. The problem is that Sims can't drive and score against a big man and he has a hard time shooting over a big man outside. His primary offense is from three, and he can also hit jumpers inside the three. But he is not a drive and finish guy at all.

Baker is a four, not a five. His inside game is almost non existent. He likes to start his offense on the perimeter, not in the post. He also is not big enough at 205lbs. to establish position in the post to rebound and score.

Those are our two glaring problems. The solution is to start Kelly at the five, Baker at the four and Sims at the three. We can sub in White for Baker and Saamb or McGriff for Kelly. And we have plenty of guards to sub in for Sims at the three.

Sims can shoot over the typical three and can hit the boards with a size advantage Kelly is obviously our best post player on offense and defense. And Baker at the four can attack from outside and help on the baords with Kelly and Sims.

So the solution is to start Baker, and Kelly and this coming form a guy that said that we always play 4 guards? You walking that back now? I don't disagree with you just pointing out the change in tone.

Not walking back anything. Siddle is a four guard guy just like Keatts was and our roster is going to be built for that. If you look at how they are listed,Baker is a guard, not a forward or center, there is a reason for that. The problem we have right now is that Sims can't create the mismatch we need at the four as a guard, and Baker isn't a post player. Move them over one spot and insert Kelly and we have something. The only problem is that puts either Fornes or Okauru as a sub instead of a starter and Siddle needs Fornes for three point shooting and Okauru is an overall good player.

Keatts really had his perfect lineup when he had a PG like Ingram who could run the offense and flat out shoot the three ball, along with Flemmings at the four who could finish at the basket and shoot the three. We don't have either of those right now so we need a Plan B. Don't forget, even though Keatts preferred a four guard set, he had to adjust until Flemmings arrived by playing a center and power forward. Siddle may have to do that to win this year.