Are you trying to infer by this that Rowan's commitment was not important? Tell me how many of those teams that were successful did not have a quality PG? While having a solid front line is important, if you don't have the floor general, you ain't going anywhere.
And no one said that facilities have not improved but in general facilities are not what brings a guy here. Poor facilities are much more of a reason to not come. As much as our facilities for BB have improved, they are probably still only about middle of the pac in BIG. They are no longer a reason not to come here
Just to point out that our problems don't all go back to the lack of a "true" point guard, floor general, bla, bla, bla. I have read on this board so many opinions that basically make you believe that if it were not for our misses at the PG positions, we'd be Kansas. Lathon, bla, bla, bla. It's a guard game these days, bla, bla, bla.
It's not like it doesn't give a team a big advantage. Of course it does. But where does this idea that you can't have success without one comes from? Sure, be selective and point out the championship game where Baylor had phenomenal guards and Gonzaga had the most talented PG in the country.
Here's a breakdown of the B1G teams last year that made and did not make the tournament. You don't need to make it to the final four to have a successful season, I'd call making the tournament (to different degrees) a successful season. Maybe it's over simplifying:
Teams with clear, defined, putting up good stats, leader on court, PG - made tourney:
- Illinois - Ayo
- Iowa - Bohannon
- Michigan - Smith
- Wisconsin - Trice
Teams with unclear PG situation - made tourney:
- Maryland - PG by committee
- Michigan State - Best passer on the team was a forward
- Purdue - PG by committee
- Ohio State - Walker, debatable in which category team falls in
- Rutgers - Mulcahy, not great. Young, a scorer, not really a general
Teams with PG - missed tourney:
- Minnesota - Carr
- Nebraska - Banton (though very weird use of the clear only NBA prospect in roster)
Teams with unclear PG - missed tourney:
- Penn State - all over the place
- Indiana - all over the place
- NW - ???
We had a PG who had the stats for the outsider to believe we had a true PG at 10 and 4. Similar stats to Bohannon. But we know it was erratic and not very leader(ish) on the court.
Some observations from the numbers (and I understand my classification of true PG is debatable):
- Overall - 6 teams had a leader at PG - 8 didn't - We are not alone
- More teams that made the tournament did not have PG than the ones who had
- You can have one of the best in the country (Carr) and go down more than a prostitute in rush hour
Again, having a leader at the point, helps. A lot. But it's not a make it or break it. If you have talent elsewhere, you are successful. I am really excited Brumbaugh can be that leader for us. But I am really confident the lack of PG was not the reason we bombed so badly after the tournament. It's not as bad a reason as the All State Arena was, but it's a huge over simplification of our problems.