Current state of the program

All good points, bullwinkle....thanks for speaking up; I hope we see more of your accurate comments.

All your points hit the nail squarely on the head....

Spot on, Bullwinkle!

Nice post. But I'm calling sock puppet.

Trasolini setting picks and rolling to the basket en route to 23 incredibly easy points. Foster, Roquemore and the other Santa Clara guards coming off screens to a) create open lanes for easier scoring b) exhaust our guards who had to chase them around all night c) create mismatches on the defensive end d) create those pick and roll opportunities that Trasolini feasted on. This is what you call an offensive strategy.

We decided to go with Oskars, Bailey and Pressley having to manufacture offense in the half court setting and force shots against 2 defenders. When that didn't work we went to the ole run down the clock trying to go inside before kicking it out to our PF for three pointers. Our bigs are great at running the floor but when are we going to learn that they can't run AND catch in transition?

I was embarrassed watching at home alone... with the sound off and the shades drawn I feel for you guys that watched at a bar or even worse, showed up at Santa Clara wearing your Pilot gear. Our coaches don't have a clue.

One positive however was Pressley. That kid has a tremendous upside. Over/under on how long his Dad allows him to stay in this mess?

Whether it's recruiting, lack of player development, or coaching - no matter what combination % of each - Reveno is accountable for all of those areas. We're entering that area where you start to question how how much time a couple of 20 win seasons a few years ago buys ER after 7 years ( which was largely the result of a couple of JC transfers who were pretty developed when they came here in Raivio and TJC).

When I turned on the game last night it was 24-4 with 10 minutes elapsed in the first half - FOUR point in 10 minutes. This offense is the most unbearable to watch in the last 20 years IMHO, and that includes Steele's tenure as well.

Yep. This is frustrating. If things continue down this path, I'm not sure what will happen come March.

So is Rev's contract up after this year? I thought I'd heard that somewhere.

newpilotfan wrote:I was embarrassed watching at home alone... with the sound off and the shades drawn I feel for you guys that watched at a bar or even worse, showed up at Santa Clara wearing your Pilot gear.

Ehh, the alcohol made it a little more bearable (go figure). Plus a St. Bernard showed up with a barrel of whiskey around his neck to keep me warm on the walk home.

newpilotfan wrote:One positive however was Pressley. That kid has a tremendous upside. Over/under on how long his Dad allows him to stay in this mess?

The broadcast keyed in on him a couple of times. Harold didn't look too impressed, but I'd imagine the look on his face when it was 22-4 was pretty much the look on all of our faces at that point.

You are right about Pressley and it wasn't just last night. He's been given a much more significant role over the last couple of weeks and best of all, he takes care of the ball. Second lowest turnover-to-MP ratio on the Pilots (behind Carr). If the Pilots as a team turned it over at the same rate as Pressley, they would only be averaging a little over 10 TOs a game, not the 15+ they actually do.

I challenge anybody on this forum to make a case that the Pilots have improved over the course of this season. I think they have gotten worse as the season has progressed, but I would happy to be convinced otherwise.

NoPoNeighbor wrote:I challenge anybody on this forum to make a case that the Pilots have improved over the course of this season. I think they have gotten worse as the season has progressed, but I would happy to be convinced otherwise.

The last thing this team could afford was losing its starting PG to injury.

We're 1-5 since Carr went down. We were 7-9 with him. Granted, we only beaten one team with an RPI lower than 200 (Bradley) and two of those wins were against Portland Bible College and Lewis & Clark, but still... we were more competitive, that's for sure.

Give where our team is at, we're not going to look good against Gonzaga, BYU, or Saint Mary's. What is more important in my book is to see how we play against teams like Pepperdine, San Diego, USF, SCU, etc. I'm hopeful things can turn around a bit against teams of that caliber. So far, we haven't been able to get it done, but I'll reserve judgement until the season is over. There are still enough games left on the schedule to see some improvement.

Two tweets from Rev today:

As team and I hunker down in undisclosed East Bay location, Coaches Pfaff, Jackson, Wolf have gone East, JUCO and Cent. Valley recruiting.

Word back from Portland is David Carr's surgery to repair his ACL went great today. We miss him dearly but know he will come back better.

Source….. been looking at a number of JC guys, but none (UP likes so far) can meet the UP entry standards or be expected to succeed/graduate.

Stonehouse wrote:

NoPoNeighbor wrote:I challenge anybody on this forum to make a case that the Pilots have improved over the course of this season. I think they have gotten worse as the season has progressed, but I would happy to be convinced otherwise.

The last thing this team could afford was losing its starting PG to injury.

We're 1-5 since Carr went down. We were 7-9 with him. Granted, we only beaten one team with an RPI lower than 200 (Bradley) and two of those wins were against Portland Bible College and Lewis & Clark, but still... we were more competitive, that's for sure.

Give where our team is at, we're not going to look good against Gonzaga, BYU, or Saint Mary's. What is more important in my book is to see how we play against teams like Pepperdine, San Diego, USF, SCU, etc. I'm hopeful things can turn around a bit against teams of that caliber. So far, we haven't been able to get it done, but I'll reserve judgement until the season is over. There are still enough games left on the schedule to see some improvement.

It's not exactly a situation that even comes close to partially offsetting or explaining the WCC results of 2013. Carr is a caliber of player where you should be able to say without hesitation "next man in". But that's assuming that you are doing a good job in recruiting.

Another excuse.

Goldhelmet, had you read his point instead of taking yet another opportunity to yell "LAME EXCUSE" in this thread, you might have seen that Stonehouse was saying - correctly - that this team was already bad enough WITH Carr, and now they're even worse without him.

To anyone that's watched the games all year, Stonehouse's point is painfully obvious so I'm really not sure why you're taking issue with it.

Yes, Goldhelmet, I think you are correct that poor talent evaluation and recruiting has got this program to where it is today. You've already stated that you don't think a coaching change is the answer, and my general sense is that most posters here will agree with that - for now.

So let's hope that this staff has a good one in Wintering and knocks it out of the park with the last scholarship, because adding two impact players to the back court is the quick fix for 2013-14.

Not cool, Robert Frost......

DeanMurdoch wrote:Goldhelmet, had you read his point instead of taking yet another opportunity to yell "LAME EXCUSE" in this thread, you might have seen that Stonehouse was saying - correctly - that this team was already bad enough WITH Carr, and now they're even worse without him.

To anyone that's watched the games all year, Stonehouse's point is painfully obvious so I'm really not sure why you're taking issue with it.

Yes, Goldhelmet, I think you are correct that poor talent evaluation and recruiting has got this program to where it is today. You've already stated that you don't think a coaching change is the answer, and my general sense is that most posters here will agree with that - for now.

So let's hope that this staff has a good one in Wintering and knocks it out of the park with the last scholarship, because adding two impact players to the back court is the quick fix for 2013-14.

I read it and I understood it. In hindsight, I should not have used the word "lame", and I apologize. But I honestly do think it is another in a long line of "explanations"/"excuses" that I hear every single year.

In reference to your point, I do not agree that this is a "quick fix" as the roster is presently constructed.

goldhelmet wrote: But I honestly do think it is another in a long line of "explanations"/"excuses" that I hear every single year.

They were bad before with Carr. They are worse now without Carr. How exactly is that an explanation/excuse?

goldhelmet wrote:In reference to your point, I do not agree that this is a "quick fix" as the roster is presently constructed.

Really, because I think the term "quick fix" very accurately describes using that last scholarship on a Juco SG. That would address the most immediate short-term need for 2013-14....even though there will also be a pressing need at the 4 beginning in 2014-15 after Nicholas graduates.

That's putting a lot of pressure on either John Bailey or Jake Ehlers to develop into an effective starter by then, or putting more pressure on recruiting to either find a HS PF that's ready to step in as a starter (good luck) or a Juco PF that can do the same.

So looking at that glaring hole upcoming in 18 months....yeah, I'd say "quick fix" is the perfect way to describe bringing in a Juco shooter for next season (which I admit will help).

Source...."(UP is) looking for a shooter, but it is imperative (UP) also find a NIcholas' replacement that can develop one year as a back-up...the role that Cason was supposed to fill."

Different source...."Again, the JUCO players that project to succeed academically at UP, are few and far between."

The post referenced comparative records with and without him, which does seem to imply that.. My point was that if you've been recruiting well consistently, losing this caliber of player should be a matter of "next man in" if you have any kind of quality depth. Losing someone like Nicholas would obviously be a different story.

Regarding my "quick fix" comment, I meant that as the roster is presently constructed, I think this will take a minimum of two years of above average recruiting cycles. I wasn't saying they shouldn't recruit a SG this year or that it shouldn't necessarily be a JUCO.

goldhelmet wrote:My point was that if you've been recruiting well consistently, losing this caliber of player should be a matter of "next man in" if you have any kind of quality depth.

Agreed.

goldhelmet wrote:Regarding my "quick fix" comment, I meant that as the roster is presently constructed, I think this will take a minimum of two years of above average recruiting cycles.

Agree that getting this fixed by 2013-14 or even 2014-15 would be a major success. My "quick fix" would have been more accurately read as "most immediate impact".

[quote="wrv"]

DoubleDipper wrote:
What do either of your sources indicate about the fact that if what they wanted was to be accomplished, there would have to be two scholarships available, not the one we know of.

Change coming to the roster?

Not necessarily....remember, the coaches are already recruiting from the high school class of 2015.

They are looking for the best player they can find.....scholarship offers have been made; the question is, who will accept....first (or at all)?

Stonehouse wrote:

NoPoNeighbor wrote:I challenge anybody on this forum to make a case that the Pilots have improved over the course of this season. I think they have gotten worse as the season has progressed, but I would happy to be convinced otherwise.

The last thing this team could afford was losing its starting PG to injury.

We're 1-5 since Carr went down. We were 7-9 with him. Granted, we only beaten one team with an RPI lower than 200 (Bradley) and two of those wins were against Portland Bible College and Lewis & Clark, but still... we were more competitive, that's for sure.

Give where our team is at, we're not going to look good against Gonzaga, BYU, or Saint Mary's. What is more important in my book is to see how we play against teams like Pepperdine, San Diego, USF, SCU, etc. I'm hopeful things can turn around a bit against teams of that caliber. So far, we haven't been able to get it done, but I'll reserve judgement until the season is over. There are still enough games left on the schedule to see some improvement.

So, I think the answer is "NO." There is zero evidence that the team has improved this season. No one has even attempted to make a case otherwise. And Stonehouse's reply basically says, "maybe they will still improve," which is a tacit admission that they have not improved after 24 games.

I am highly skeptical of a strategy of simply firing coaches as a knee-jerk reaction when things go poorly. But as this season progresses I am feeling less and less inclined to support the current coaching staff. If we were losing but at least getting better it would be one thing. From my close observation of the team over the course of this season, we are getting worse.

NoP0 - There is clearly no evidence of improvement this year - at least none that a rational analysis would suggest. Actually, there is clear and convincing evidence of regression - namely, the scoreboard, especially in WCC play.

I'm not necessarily saying a coaching change needs to be made - at least not yet. But one thing is clear, "hoping" things will get better and taking the same approaches to talent evaluation, recruiting, player development, offensive style, weight training/nutrition, etc., is a recipe for the same results. A comprehensive review and re-examination of these areas is definitely needed in a big way.

Evidence for improvement: The games prior to UTPA with the exception of the Montana game.

Evidence for regression: Most games since.

Evidence for lack of depth: Games since the D. Carr injury.