Question for the board

[cats2017]

Who can recall what Penn State's Big Ten record was through its first 10 games a year ago?

Check out where they are right now. You dissect this, that, and the other until you're blue in the face, but there's simply no substitute for players gaining experience in this league.

 

[JournCat]

Good luck tonight, Chris!

 

[GatoLouco]

Here's Penn State's record, in 2016/17, the magical NU year, the year Lamar Stevens was a FR, when their top 6 scorers were 3 FR,1 SO and 2 JR (top 2 were FR):
Overall: 15-18
B1G: 6-12

I will be tickled pink if we win 6 conference games. I will bet the house we will not win 15 games.

Yes, there's no substitute for experience. But 1-11 is atrocious.

 

[CappyNU]

Here's Penn State's record, in 2016/17, the magical NU year, the year Lamar Stevens was a FR, when their top 6 scorers were 3 FR,1 SO and 2 JR (top 2 were FR):
Overall: 15-18
B1G: 6-12

I will be tickled pink if we win 6 conference games. I will bet the house we will not win 15 games.

Yes, there's no substitute for experience. But 1-11 is atrocious.

PSU also had freshman Tony Carr, who got drafted after his sophomore year, and the B1G was significantly weaker that year than this year. PSU played 4 games against Kenpom top-25 teams and went 0-4. This year we've already played 7 of those games and have 4 more on the schedule. Just don't think the situations are comparable.

 

[cats2017]

Good luck tonight, Chris!

Thanks. Hope I don't blow it!

 

[GatoLouco]

Just don't think the situations are comparable.

Neither is comparing PSU's last year to whatever hopes we have for the future. Which it hasn't actually happened. And if you want to learn from the past and experience, our ability to cash in on experience is less than stellar if you look at 17/18 and 18/19. But wait, we have excuses, we always do! Even if our records were not borderline OK, they were just flat out terrible.

What is undeniable is that winning less than 4 games in conference play, in any year, is pretty darn bad. And that's where we are headed. But wait, excuses again. We are just NU, the unluckiest program on the planet.

 

[cats2017]

We are just NU, the unluckiest program on the planet.

Not quite the unluckiest. 'Cats are No. 348 out of 353 D-I teams in the Luck metric according to KenPom.

 

[Styre]

We'll see if NU wins 6 of its last 8 conference games this year like Penn State did last year.

 

[haywood jahblowme]

Who can recall what Penn State's Big Ten record was through its first 10 games a year ago?

Check out where they are right now. You dissect this, that, and the other until you're blue in the face, but there's simply no substitute for players gaining experience in this league.

also illinois and rutgers i believe

 

[go cats go_rivals310290]

also illinois and rutgers i believe

Yes, just last season in conference...

Illinois started 2-8...finished 7-13....now kenpom #29 (in Feb 2020)
Rutgers started 1-6...finished 7-13....now kenpom #33 (in Feb 2020)
Penn State started 0-10...finished 7-13...now kenpom #11 (in Feb 2020)

There is certainly precedent. But, of course, it's tough to have perspective and hope for the best when you have only won once in the past 13 games.

I'm ready for that winning to begin tonight!

 

[Styre]

After starting 1-11 last year, Penn State also hosted Michigan in their 13th conference game. Penn State beat the #6 Wolverines by 6. We just lost to the unranked Wolverines by 25.

 

[olsh]

Who can recall what Penn State's Big Ten record was through its first 10 games a year ago?

Check out where they are right now. You dissect this, that, and the other until you're blue in the face, but there's simply no substitute for players gaining experience in this league.

Which would be a lovely analysis, but how did we do the year AFTER we made the NCAAs, when we had a MORE experienced team and started the season ranked in the Top 25 and was Clark Kellogg's pre-season Final Four pick.

That previous sentence seems like ages ago. It was less than little more than 2 years ago.

 

[GatoLouco]

Which would be a lovely analysis, but how did we do the year AFTER we made the NCAAs, when we had a MORE experienced team and started the season ranked in the Top 25 and was Clark Kellogg's pre-season Final Four pick.

That previous sentence seems like ages ago. It was less than little more than 2 years ago.

We followed it with a 4 win season. But wait, no PG, bla, bla, bla, bla... Our ability to capitalize on talent scares me.

 

[haywood jahblowme]

We followed it with a 4 win season. But wait, no PG, bla, bla, bla, bla... Our ability to capitalize on talent scares me.

so we got lucky in the tournament year? or players made plays? or we had decent coaching?

ans with the same team basically - what changed? the coaches? the players? not lucky?

 

[GatoLouco]

so we got lucky in the tournament year? or players made plays? or we had decent coaching?

ans with the same team basically - what changed? the coaches? the players? not lucky?

You gotta admit that, in the realm of probabilities, it is far more likely we got lucky in the year of the tournament than we are just unlucky, year after year.

That's why the next couple of years are so important. Because I do not think you can go for that long and keep saying you were just unlucky with circumstances.

 

[haywood jahblowme]

You gotta admit that, in the realm of probabilities, it is far more likely we got lucky in the year of the tournament than we are just unlucky, year after year.

That's why the next couple of years are so important. Because I do not think you can go for that long and keep saying you were just unlucky with circumstances.

i agree - but people keep saying we had so much talent and blew it the next year

 

[NJCat]

so we got lucky in the tournament year? or players made plays? or we had decent coaching?

They got lucky. Taphorn doesn't connect with Dererk on that miracle shot Cats still haven't been to a NCAA Tournament.

 

[haywood jahblowme]

They got lucky. Taphorn doesn't connect with Dererk on that miracle shot Cats still haven't been to a NCAA Tournament.

agree -but we are always bemoaning how we failed so miserably with so much talent at the all-state year. so maybe we didn't and just got lucky the year before?

 

[GatoLouco]

i agree - but people keep saying we had so much talent and blew it the next year

Who knows, maybe we over achieved the year of the tournament. Perfectly possible. But it was very legitimate to think we could do at least as well the year after. More experience and all.

It's not like the year of the tournament was a perfect storm. Pardon missed 8 games early on. Lindsey missed 4 games ?in conference?, not sure.

And I remember thinking we were kind of a lock, before pressure seemed to get to us. Before the MI miracle we barely survived, at home, a 3 win Rutgers team. We went to IN and had the game pretty much won, before falling apart in the last minute. It was not an easy ride.

 

[GatoLouco]

They got lucky. Taphorn doesn't connect with Dererk on that miracle shot Cats still haven't been to a NCAA Tournament.

Not sure I agree with that. We did not exactly get lucky, in Bloomington, the week before. We lost that game more than, poorly coached, IN won it. And that would, probably, have sealed it.

 

[Vassar69]

We followed it with a 4 win season. But wait, no PG, bla, bla, bla, bla... Our ability to capitalize on talent scares me.

Couch agrees with you

 

[GatoLouco]

GatoLouco said:

↑



We followed it with a 4 win season. But wait, no PG, bla, bla, bla, bla... Our ability to capitalize on talent scares me.

Couch agrees with you
[/quote]
Every season there seems to be one. Youth is just the most recent excuse the commentators go along with.

But broadcasters will always be nice to coaches. They need the access. They go to shoot arounds, need the chats to get updated on the teams, etc. Hearing broadcasters go along with excuses for coaches, or being complimentary of their work means very little.

 

[Vassar69]

Couch agrees with you

Every season there seems to be one. Youth is just the most recent excuse the commentators go along with.

But broadcasters will always be nice to coaches. They need the access. They go to shoot arounds, need the chats to get updated on the teams, etc. Hearing broadcasters go along with excuses for coaches, or being complimentary of their work means very little.[/QUOTE]
Good point. It’s all part of the show

 

[go cats go_rivals310290]

Good point. It’s all part of the show

There are no controversial announcers working our games. Everyone just goes along with the narrative that they are given by our Sports Information Department: young team, Pat Spencer the former lacrosse player, the unfortunate injury to Buie just as he was getting going, the tremendous upside to Pete Nance yet to be realized, Chris Collins getting Northwestern to the Tournament, the emergence of Miller Kopp as a sophomore, the getting close-so-many-times and what that does to a team discussion... You hear it every game

I suppose it's a good thing that nobody seems to have a bone to pick with our coach or how our program is run. At the same time, nobody has reason to give us much thought and attention either. They just follow the script.

 

[GatoLouco]

Would be interesting to check what the tone of broadcasting is with other long time struggling programs around the country. I bet it’s not that different. On top of everything that was said, most broadcasters want to come across as pleasant, nice, likeable. Hardly want to risk being perceived as dicks.

Some schools come to mind
Vanderbilt
Georgia
Texas

I’m sure plenty of more you can all think of

 

[phatcat_rivals223240]

They got lucky. Taphorn doesn't connect with Dererk on that miracle shot Cats still haven't been to a NCAA Tournament.

this seems unfair, and I am a Collins basher

First, we might have won in overtime

Second, we won two B1G tourney games, which would have made us 22-11 with essentially a "road" win over a top 25 MD team. That seems like enough, doesn't it? Or do you presume we lose that game if we lose Mich?

 

[JournCat]

Good point. It’s all part of the show

There are no controversial announcers working our games. Everyone just goes along with the narrative that they are given by our Sports Information Department: young team, Pat Spencer the former lacrosse player, the unfortunate injury to Buie just as he was getting going, the tremendous upside to Pete Nance yet to be realized, Chris Collins getting Northwestern to the Tournament, the emergence of Miller Kopp as a sophomore, the getting close-so-many-times and what that does to a team discussion... You hear it every game

I suppose it's a good thing that nobody seems to have a bone to pick with our coach or how our program is run. At the same time, nobody has reason to give us much thought and attention either. They just follow the script.

A struggling coach will either rebound and so the broadcasters want to preserve their connections, or he’ll get fired and join them on the broadcast in a few years. No upside to being negative.

 

[Styre]

this seems unfair, and I am a Collins basher

First, we might have won in overtime

Second, we won two B1G tourney games, which would have made us 22-11 with essentially a "road" win over a top 25 MD team. That seems like enough, doesn't it? Or do you presume we lose that game if we lose Mich?

Yeah. We were an 8 seed. One more loss to Michigan wouldn't have dropped us 4 seed lines and completely out. For some reason there's a perception that the '17 team barely snuck into the tournament, but it's not true - they were comfortably in.

(Granted, if we lose that game to Michigan, our Big Ten Tournament matchups are different and our resume changes)

 

[rwhitney014]

Yeah. We were an 8 seed. One more loss to Michigan wouldn't have dropped us 4 seed lines and completely out. For some reason there's a perception that the '17 team barely snuck into the tournament, but it's not true - they were comfortably in.

(Granted, if we lose that game to Michigan, our Big Ten Tournament matchups are different and our resume changes)

I think it's because CBS, playing up the drama/torturing us, saved our corner of the bracket for last, so everyone thought it was more and more tenuous as the slots got filled up. Which, of course, isn't how it works. But it was tense for a few minutes in W-R!

 

[NJCat]

Yeah. We were an 8 seed. One more loss to Michigan wouldn't have dropped us 4 seed lines and completely out. For some reason there's a perception that the '17 team barely snuck into the tournament, but it's not true - they were comfortably in.

(Granted, if we lose that game to Michigan, our Big Ten Tournament matchups are different and our resume changes)

I have a different view. NU struggled down the stretch and Collins told the team Michigan was a must-win. Assume the lost to Michigan, and also Purdue in the final game. They'd have been 2-7 in their last 9 regular season games. They would then be an 8 seed in the B1G Tournament playing #9 Illinois in the first game. Give NU a W there. They'd then play #1 seed Purdue and probably lose. At best they're a bubble team and the last B1G team in the field. Remember that the 8 B1G teams that made the tourney all won at least 10 regular season B1G games.....at 9-9 NU probably wouldn't have made it.

 

[NURoseBowl]

I think it's because CBS, playing up the drama/torturing us, saved our corner of the bracket for last, so everyone thought it was more and more tenuous as the slots got filled up. Which, of course, isn't how it works. But it was tense for a few minutes in W-R![/QUOTE]

Was there for that. Unforgettable.

 

[NURoseBowl]

I have a different view. NU struggled down the stretch and Collins told the team Michigan was a must-win. Assume the lost to Michigan, and also Purdue in the final game. They'd have been 2-7 in their last 9 regular season games. They would then be an 8 seed in the B1G Tournament playing #9 Illinois in the first game. Give NU a W there. They'd then play #1 seed Purdue and probably lose. At best they're a bubble team and the last B1G team in the field. Remember that the 8 B1G teams that made the tourney all won at least 10 regular season B1G games.....at 9-9 NU probably wouldn't have made it.

Glad we didn't have to find out, Fitz.

 

[freewillie07]

Couch agrees with you

Every season there seems to be one. Youth is just the most recent excuse the commentators go along with.

But broadcasters will always be nice to coaches. They need the access. They go to shoot arounds, need the chats to get updated on the teams, etc. Hearing broadcasters go along with excuses for coaches, or being complimentary of their work means very little.[/QUOTE]

Pete Nance and Robbie Beran were two of the highest-rated recruits in NU history. But, sure, CCC “didn’t capitalize” in recruiting.

 

[Styre]

I have a different view. NU struggled down the stretch and Collins told the team Michigan was a must-win. Assume the lost to Michigan, and also Purdue in the final game. They'd have been 2-7 in their last 9 regular season games. They would then be an 8 seed in the B1G Tournament playing #9 Illinois in the first game. Give NU a W there. They'd then play #1 seed Purdue and probably lose. At best they're a bubble team and the last B1G team in the field. Remember that the 8 B1G teams that made the tourney all won at least 10 regular season B1G games.....at 9-9 NU probably wouldn't have made it.

We would have been 21-12 (9-9) in this scenario. It's hard to say for sure, but given that Illinois was 18-14 (8-10) with a worse resume and got a 2-seed in the NIT, I still think we get in, probably as like a 10 seed.