Saturday, March 21, 2009

A day later

Still not ready for any real analysis, but wanted to weigh in quickly on the debate going on in the comment section of the previous post and on both message boards. Friday night was frustrating and the second half was not a good 20 minutes of basketball, but on a whole, this season was a huge success. We are ahead of schedule with our six sophomores. We hit a hot team and didn't fight back. That stinks, but overall there is a ton of encouraging things to take away from this past month and this season. I think Al is the perfect coach for BC and actually under appreciated. Is he perfect? No. But he is a great coach.

Everyone take breath. This will be a long offseason and we can breakdown all aspects of this team.


eaglephile said...

I agree with you ATL, and so does the blogger over at BC All Access

EAGLE_IN_LA said...

Things could be MUCH, MUCH worse, fellas. We could be Georgetown alumns/students -- no NCAAS, a first-round loss in the NIT, and the worst part ... no football team. BC is a great place. We got FOOTBALL COMING UP in a matter of months. Go Eagles.

downtown_resident said...

There should be a 24-to-48 hour moratorium on message board posting following big losses. Because there isn't, I impose my own 24-to-48 hour moratorium on message board reading, especially the hysterical sky-is-falling type of comments.

ATL is right. This was a nice season with a rough ending. I'd love to see the 2008-2009 preseason predictions from anyone now calling for Skinner's head.

jjo1965 said...

Al Skinner is the perfect coach for this program if you only care about kinda being competitive.

Yes, on some levels, he does a nice job. But his flaws will always prevent his teams from ever making a deep run into the NCAAs. Fundamentally, his teams always fail miserably. Beating a dead horse, yes, but the microcosm is the inbounds play. USC got layups from their inbounds plays while BC had to inbound the ball out around half court, often forcing them into rushed plays against the shot clock. I don't even want to get into the "inbound play" vs the press, the one where the ball always goes to the player double teamed in the corner. Luckily, USC didn't use their press or the game would've been worse.

Groundhog said...

i would be upset with this result if skinner were working with a full set of 4 and 5 star recruits every year. but he is finding no-names and kids snubbed by other programs and turning them into NCAA tournament quality teams. the difference in recruiting talent between boston college and the other ACC teams is enormous. we simply get murdered. i am surprised that BC can "kinda be competitive". By all accounts, the ACC should be mopping the floor with boston college. but it hasn't happened. am i going to blame skinner for poor recruiting? no. bostonians suck. they act like college sports don't exist. it's cold and miserable 9 months out of the year. if i were a high school prospect i would never in a million years come to BC.

CT said...

I didn't get the sense that there was an overwhelming amount of the "sky is falling" type of comments on here. There were a few, sure, but that's to be expected. We all know what the comments are like during a football game when, say, we fumble..."X is the worst, why is he playing?" I actually think the comments have been, on the whole, fairly positive, even after getting crushed in the last ten minutes Friday night.

I think the first round loss is less about the USC game than what our expectations are for the program. We debate the same thing with the football team. Why can't BC basketball win a National Championship? Why can't Skinner recruit blue-chippers? How does Skinner make lemonade out of lemons as often as he does?

I think the recruiting Skinner does falls in the lower third of the conference, but not at the bottom. UNC and Duke have big classes coming in again, Wake is young (yikes), and even Ga. Tech has Derrick Favors joining a young team (he's a monster). But even having said that, the next two years will be THE arbiter of Skinner's future at BC--he's got the core of the team all at the same stage, all young, and will have had a full four years to mold this crew into something.

If after two years this group doesn't exceed expectation, I'd bet Skinner moves on as I suspect a general sentiment reminiscent of TOB's "ceiling" comments would prevail.

I essentially agree with Groundhog--except for the fact that I DO blame Skinner for recruiting--in so far as the football program is concerned. I wouldn't go to BC if I were a football star, if I could instead go to UT or USC, for example. Boston does suck as a college sports town. It's the Anti-Atlanta.

But for the bball program, the playing field (or court, as the case may be) is level. It's a whole different ballgame.

Things could be worse. True. But things HAVE to get better now.

Big Jack Krack said...

I do believe that players who join the BC Football Program really do have a great chance to develop their talents. Why? Maybe they don't have the pressure of arriving as stars or maybe it's because they don't have as much competition within the team - or maybe the competition is really there and it's healthy. Maybe it's because our program is really good that way. Whatever - it's a recruiting plus for us now. We may not get front line stars when they arrive, but we have players getting drafted very well by the NFL. That's one reason to come to BC to play football - you can play against top competition and against some of the teams that didn't offer you a scholarship.

I don't know what I'm talking about.

CT said...

BJK...I like it!

I think you've hit on some of the aspects that would attract a recruit to BC.

I may not agree that it's about not having to deal with pressure--kids WANT to play as soon as possible, generally. To compete. But, you're right, we also do take the alleged "2" or "3" star recruit and get him drafted (a product of not having very many 4 or 5 star recruits, too). Something to be said for that.

Truth be told, most kids stay within a short driving distance (half a day) of home to play football.

The South, California, Texas, Ohio...all seem to have cultural connections to high school football and this happens to be where much of the talent (speed) plays.

None are that close to Boston.

Seems simple. I don't think it's the whole story (admissions, too, maybe? Culture at BC in comparison to big-time college football towns, etc.), but I tend to favor the simple explanation over the complicated one.

Paulus for Three...No Good said...

I think you touched on something, CT - the ACC is totally wide open these next two years. Wake is young, yes, but their core trio are all lottery picks in a semi-weak draft class; I would be surprised if any of them stayed. I think the only way they remain is if they took the Cleveland St. loss personally on Friday night and don't want to go out that way. Hopefully, this isn't the case. Carolina graduates Hansbrough and Danny Green, and Lawson will probably go with them, leaving Ellington (who might go too) with Ed Davis and Deon Thompson. Henderson would be silly to stay at Duke, although the team should be drastically improved giving Paulus's six minutes to Elliot Williams. Douglas, McClinton, Rivers and Vassallo are all finally graduating. I don't know - perhaps I'm being a bit too optimistic, but why can't BC compete for a regular season title over the next two seasons with a Sanders, Trap and Jackson core? I think if Lawal stays, pairing him with Favors could be scary at Georgia Tech. Other than that, though, I really don't see a clear favorite next year (again, all assuming the trio from Wake leaves. If they stay, they'll be in the preseason top 5).

Rob said...

Thanks for providing some levity, ATL.