Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Skinner model: what is going wrong this year

Things are bad on the basketball front. I remain one of the Skinner loyalists, but a large portion of the fanbase has checked out of this season. They join a smaller group of fans who have long been critical of Skinner's approach. Do these factors and the pathetic play threaten Skinner's job? Not really. Al is secure at BC for now and with his girls approaching college, I don't think Al wants to go anywhere. But Al doesn't have lifetime security. He will enter next season with pressure to improve. I don't know if he will make staff changes or encourage some veteran players to leave, but the current mix is not working. But what went wrong? All that is missing from last year's team is Tyrese Rice. Rice was a very good player, but his absence doesn't explain all the issues.

In my mind these are the problems. Unfortunately there are no quick fixes. (As always, leave your thoughts below.)

1. The current Juniors.
Ironically Skinner's most heralded recruiting class has been the biggest disappointment of his tenure at BC. As configured, the current Junior class is deep but severely flawed group and their personalities don't seem to mesh. The only guy who seems suited for the flex is Corey Raji, but nagging injuries and his teammates lack of passing has limited Corey's contributions. Trapani and Sanders could be very good players, but one has forced to much this year and the other has been terrible in his effort, passion and decision making.

2. No one great player.
Sometimes one great, or very good player can cover a lot of mistakes. This roster doesn't have one. The closest thing might be Jackson, but he is not at the Bell/Smith/Dudley level or even at the Rice level yet. He may be that piece next year, but I don't know if he can blossom into a Rice like player coming off the bench and playing with so many other guys who are selfish and impatient.

3. Defense.
Al's defenses have always been bad. This year is not any worse but the offense isn't filling the gaps. If Al had a good defensive scheme to fall back on things might not be so bad.

4. Rotations.
We are now going 10 deep. That doesn't seem to work for Al. All the problems, whether it been guys forcing things, guys checking out, guys blowing assignments, all come back to playing time. If you had 8 engaged guys, things might not be so bad.

5. No high basketball IQ guys.
Do you get the sense that any of these guys live basketball? Or are basketball junkies? Jared Dudley didn't have the best physical gifts. Rice was too small. But both of those guys lived in the gym and had a great sense of the game. Skinner is not a rah rah guy. He needs to have driven players that will maximize the system's potential. If Rakim Sanders shot as many jumpers as Tyrese Rice and didn't shoot line drives, he'd be in the NBA now.

My biggest fear in all of this is that next year will be more of the same. Will any of these guys changed their attitude over the summer? Will any of them improve their games? I hope so, but I fear some will check out at the first sign of adversity. I've long said Al is a great coach. If he is then turning around this mess won't be a problem.


bostonfoodie said...

In reference to our great past players with high basketball IQ, and great work ethics in general, there's a good tidbit from Bill Simmons' most recent ESPN.com article about Jared Dudley:

"We invited him [Steve Nash] to an ESPN dinner at Sundance, and he told us there were three reasons he's not aging: a no-sugar diet, a sleep journal and a steady supply of undetectable PEDs from the revolutionary Suns training staff. (Fine, I made the last one up.) He said the no-sugar diet made him recover faster after games and especially for back-to-backs. In fact, half the Suns are watching their sugar intake now. Nash brought Jared Dudley with him to dinner; Jared was reading the menu and asking Nash, "Can I have this? What about this?" like he was eating with Harley Pasternak or something. It was high comedy. Not only does Nash make his teammates better, he orders for them. Anyway, I don't see him going downhill anytime soon."

The fact that Dudley is not only staying at the hip of one of the best players in the NBA, but also taking health cues from him, is a great reminder how much intangibles on guys like Dudley make fore great "diamonds in the rough" that BC was so great at finding. I hope we can get that magic back in our next classes.

Erik said...

CBS executives must be doing the biggest "This is typical" face about having to broadcast UNC/BC this Saturday.

Our only chance next year is if Biko gets better and Heslip can run the offense. We need a true point guard. Jackson dribbling for 25 second each possession is not offense, and it doesn't create opportunities for anyone.

(and yes I realize anyone who looked at our roster would think we need a big man. I guess that fact is concerning)

Bill said...

"...I've long said Al is a great coach. If he is then turning around this mess won't be a problem."

Where is your evidence to support that statement? I would suppose it is to revisit the past--the "glory days"? Or the fact that Al has gotten us in the tournament 7 of the 9 past seasons--or whatever number that is? But we still see the shortcomings on a daily basis--lack of recent recruiting knowing we were going to be graduating Rice and that we needed inside presence--and we get Josh Southern? We still can't break a press, we still lose to Harvard back to back seasons (and the Northeasterns, Maines, etc.). We see a recruited class--now Juniors going downhill --faster than some of the olympians I watched last night. We still see Al's "Big Easy" demeanor as players turnj the ball over and make poor decisions again and again and again--when they need a good kick in the arse. We have an assistant coach "manhandling" an FSU band member. You name the dysfunction and we have it! But you say Al is a great coach?! And if he is so great why hasn't he turned it around as you suggest he will, now, during this season?! What magic wand is he going to wave during the off season?

Again--where is your evidence? Oh yes--getting into the NCAA's and an occasional upset of Duke, UNC....not good enough for most BC fans! (Or unfortunately good enough for too many?!) We can and should do better.

Raj said...

"Trapani and Sanders could be very good players, but one has forced to much this year and the other has been terrible in his effort, passion and decision making."
Could you clarify which one is which :)

The departure of Tyrese Rice had a huge impact on our team. We have lacked chemistry since our assistants left in 2006, but were able to squeak out wins with great Individual performances, not team performances. When you have a player that can score and plays with confidence it does a number of things for your team. The team plays better defense, knowing that they can score on the other end. And it frees up other players because teams are game planning around that player. On this team, there is no one who can score (and i mean really score), or anyone who the team trusts to score. The college critics undervalue the importance of a legit scorer, and consider college a "team" game. Every team has their go to guy. Who is ours Reggie? (inconsistent shooter, poor decision making) Trapani? (can't create his own shot if his life depended on it) Sanders? (an enigma) We haven't run the real flex in 3 years and its finally showing, we deferred to Tyrese Rice to bail us out of the flex last year, and he had a solid year. From the FSU game we heaved up a number of desperation 3's as the shot clock expired, the first half we hit, the second half we didnt. Tyrese Rice shot well in those situations or would get to the rim, he kept us in games, he created mismatches, he found open guys. Unfortunately i thought this team would run the flex and run it well, i didn't account for this being the first year they really actually run the offense. The upside, we can't be any worse next year.

In response to "We can and should do better", i think BC fans have been spoiled. Who have we been spoiled by, Coach Skinner. Are people asking for Roy Williams' head because UNC stinks this year? I don't agree with some of his moves, but we can't put all the blame on skinner. Trapani and Sanders have underperformed, Biko has cracked under the pressure, when he showed glimpses of greatness last year. Look for us to be get 18 wins next year.

CT said...

Spoiled? From what? 1st round losses in the NCAAs? Roy Williams has won 2 National Championships at UNC. He's actually earned the right to walk when he wants to. Some of you think Skinner has too. Huh?

18 wins gets an NIT bid next year. Go team.

After the USC loss last year (an unsightly mess), I thought Skinner had 2 seasons to accomplish something more than the norm. He's down to one.

Danny Boy said...

For a school that uses "Ever to excel" as one of its (many) mottoes, I am amazed at its alumnus' willingness to accept the status quo. Every organization has a series of plateaus it wants to reach.

If you were starting from scratch, you'd bring in a coach who could consistently get you above .500. Usually, that coach wont be good enough to get you into the NCAA's every year (which is why he took the job at your miserable school), so you hire a better coach who will now take the job at your school. His job is going to help your squad compete in conference and reach the NCAA's consistently. He may reach his peak, and so you try and hire a coach who can get you to compete in the NCAAs with consistency.

Sometimes a program is lucky enough to find a coach who can carry them through all of the plateaus. BC is not that lucky. Al has done great things with our program, and clearly brought us to the next plateau. We expect an NCAA invite now (seemingly unthinkable prior to Al). However, we seem to have reached the extent of Al's ability. We have made only 1 run into the 2nd weekend, and according to the experts that team underperformed to the tune of exiting at least 2 rounds too soon.

Al has brought our program into more national prominence, and I am grateful for that. However, now that we are a better program, we can bring in a better coach who can bring us to that next plateau. I understand the feelings of loyalty towards the man who brought us out of the dark ages, but to stick with him indefinitely is to betray the greater philosophy of Boston College

mmason said...

ATL-you preached to the choir on this one. I've been saying this on your site and to myself, outloud to the TV when we play, and my 10 year-old daughter even has the rap down:"Daddy says we have no bigtime player, no fire in the belly, and nobody is learning."

Low BBall IQ, no Star and no "sand" is a recipe for disaster and I spell that "BC Eagles 2010." Still can't believe we didn't recruit ANYONE this year--that's a situation.

Foodie--you're supreme--and wouldn't that be Dudley? Damn, he always cares and always did. ATL nails it when he says we got no gym rat to lead us. I don't think I've ever read such smart, on target posts running back to back in years. And not just because I've been saying this stuff for weeks. Where IS our Scary Player that nobody can stop?

Ultimately, the real problem may be that complacency that gave us no recruit this season. The JR. Class is just not playing up to pedigree...and that's happening elsewhere,too--not just at Chestnut Hill. But we need another hot kid who can bring it fearless and nightly. It's not Reggie, at least not now--and I see never in the near future, if he keeps up this skydive learning curve.

There's a hot kid out there and Al has to go on a trip to that place and find him. He's not on the Conte floor right now...that's sure.

eagleboston said...

I would reserve the word "great" for a select few coaches that have won national titles or consistently reached the Elite 8. Al was a very good coach the first half of the decade but he has definitely slipped since his assistants left about 4 years ago.

kp said...

I think that the real problem with BC this year is a lack of any post precense what so ever. Tyrese sort of made up for that last year with his penetrating abilities but this year our lack of an inside game has killed us.

Erik said...

Luke knows, sage ol' youngster.


Kuechly is talking about BC football, but it is a dead on reflection of what is happening with our basketball team this season.

How good can Boston College be next season?
I think it all depends on how hard we work and how we come together as a team. You could be the most talented team in the world and if you don't work hard or come together as a team then that doesn't accumulate to winning games. You have to been a team number one and then put yourself in a position to win games. I think we do that very well. We work really well together and we play for each other and not ourselves. We just need to make sure we come together as a team and work hard. Wherever that puts us is where it puts us.

mod34b said...

Nice post Erik

Luke the K really is impressive. Smart kid. Great attitude. Kind of guy we need at BC.

Harry Collins said...

@ CT - you define a "great" coach by tournament runs. That's fine, but by that narrow measure, Skinner is a middling or perhaps a very modest failure of a coach, and Steve Fisher is the greatest freaking coach of all time (Google him, younger guys, and you'll see my point). In my view, deep runs are but a small part of what makes a coach sucessful. I am of the opinion that deep runs have a lot more to do with matchups and luck than "greatness." I have beat you up on this point before, CT, but I will remind you that Skinner and No. 4 were an inbounds pass away from knocking off No. 1 seed Nova in 2006, and then presenting the worst nightmare of a matchup for eventual champ Florida in the Elite Eight. But whatever. You and your Jimmy O'Brien wet dream team from '94 will soil your BC snuggie for eternity, we all know that. In my opinion, Skinner is a very solid coach who has a particularly unlikeable team right now, which is causing all this angst. But to get into a debate over his job security is pretty ludicrous. OK, he's not a "great" coach, but really, who is? A handful of coaches nationwide? If Skinner puts together another 10 years like his past 10 years, his resume will look a lot like another coach who used to get ripped by his own fanbase before he finally (and I do mean finally) broke through with an NC - Jim Boeheim. Sure, Boeheim was a little higher profile, and maybe had a little more consistency (not much though), but he had similar buffoons saying he "sucked" because he was always making the tourney and always losing early (No. 15 Santa Clara over No. 2 Cuse sound familiar?) I'm not saying BC will win it all under Skinner, but gimme break, the guy is solid. He just has a bad bunch of characters this year, an atrocious point guard, and terrible chemistry. He needs a few stinkers in a row to get into this debate.

Blockparty said...

Harry - 1
CT - 0

Claver2010 said...

Boeheim made more Sweet 16s in his first 3 years than Skinner has in his 13 years. If post season success isn't what you are looking for. Boeheim has more 25+ win seasons in his first four seasons at Syracuse than Skinner does in his life.


Last 4 years, do you know where we rank in conference record?

Harry Collins said...

Claver, let me dumb this down a little bit for you. The Boeheim comparison is not apples to apples because Cuse's program is at a level above BC's, and always has been. That program is just a cut below NCAA royalty (UCLA, Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, UNC). So Sweet 16s and 25 win seasons don't mean the same to Cuse fans, they are gunning for Final Fours every year. Notwithstanding the different levels, the analogy is apt because for years and years, Boeheim, like Skinner, produced 20 win seasons, made the tourney consistently and exited too early for a segment of their restless, uninformed fans who called for his head until he finally broke through later in his career.

In fact, if you want to flip it around, Skinner has never, ever suffered the kind of tourney upsets Boeheim has. Not even close. What was the biggest tourney upset for BC under Skinner? Milwaukee-Wisconsin in 2005? That team upset a No. 3 to get to BC, and then hung with 35-1, No. 1 overall Illinois in the regional final before bowing out (under Bruce Pearl). Not a big upset in my book, just an upset for people who can't get past the name of the program. Tell me what other "big" upset a Skinner team has suffered in the tourney, and I'll throw a Cuse debacle from the 80s and 90s that'll turn your face red.

Peace out.

CT said...

Harry, almost doesn't count. Not in sports. Ever.

"We were one inbounds away...yada yada...we probably/maybe/coulda hung with Florida...yada yada..." Nobody knows that. You don't. It's a guess. In fact, I don't blame Skinner at all for losing to Villanova--that was a very good team.

We lost. Skinner's best team was competitive with Villanova and lost.

By the way, I've even read your condescending comments on here about how even you think Skinner should go, have I not? Now he could go another 10 years, or he needs to have a few more stinkers?

I remember well who Steve Fisher was. Deep runs are now matchups and luck? Huh? Matchups are part of any athletic contest, of course, but hardly the X factor in a college game that so permissively allows and employs zone defenses, for example. Again, I think you're missing the point. Moreover, I love your antipathy for O'Brien. By the way, I was never in love with him, as I've told you before, and I find it ironic that you're the one with some admitted animosity toward the guy for whatever reason. I really don't care. My point is, again and again, one of expectation.

Skinner is a solid coach. We agree. Maybe not a solid tactician, but perhaps an above-average strategist. I simply don't agree with you that his job security is off the table. You've said before that you think he's earned the right to walk when he wants to. I think that's one of the dumbest things I've read on here and I can take the condescension and the know-it-all vibe you've got and chuckle and it's not a problem because at least you're articulate. But if anything is ludicrous...it's that idea.

In the last several years, coincidentally at the same time that the ACC is actually DOWN in terms of talent and top-to-bottom strength (it's been top-heavy), BC has regressed.

The fundamental difference in this debate seems to me to be the answer to the question: what satisfies you in terms of BC basketball? What defines success? There are no obstacles to BC being better than it is in bball, as opposed to football. None. Seven invites in 10 years is good. But you play the regular season simply and only for a seeding in the NCAAs. That's it. Not so alumni can brag about 20-win regular seasons. Not so you can tell me that Skinner is a solid coach. The bottom line is that there are many alumni who were happy with TOB's ADMITTED ceiling of "8 or 9" wins. As painful as it is to admit, he was probably right, for the most part. I don't have as much of a problem with that in football b/c BC is operating at a resource, geographic, and academic disadvantage. But bball is different b/c it can be different. Maybe you're content with the status quo, one that hasn't changed in a decade. There's no indication that anything will change. Fine. I'm not. And there are many other "solid" coaches out there that would love the chance to coach in the ACC. And while "greatness" is subjective, it's not necessary. Neither are (mostly) slightly above-average results.

CT said...

Just to be clear, UW-Milwaukee was a 12 seed in '05, beat a 5 seed in the opening round (not a 3), then 4 BC, then--and I remember watching the game--lost decisively by 14 to 1 Illinois.

To compare Skinner's upset losses to Boeheim's is to do a disservice to Syracuse's bball program. The two simply don't compare. Boeheim made the Championship game in his 11th year--the famous Keith Smart shot in '87. He did, however, have 4 Sweet 16s before that. His teams were upset, however, several times between, you know, 3 Championship game appearances.

Now that gets you a free pass that's earned. Not 1st round losses.

Unless someone can convince me that BC hasn't hit a ceiling. That maybe, just maybe, the system currently in operation isn't good enough to be...really good.

Or maybe I should just be thankful that we're "solid," and live life comfortably beneath my regular season winning pct banner that I've sewn into a snuggie.

matthew2 said...

CT was less rude/condescending and more persuasive than Harry. Well played.

Harry Collins said...

U-W Milwaukee beat No. 3 seed and 13th ranked Alabama to get to No. 6 BC. Illinois blew everyone in the world out that year, and could not pull away from Milwaukee, it was a comfortable win, but no blowout. Regardless, Milwaukee was the real deal, thus not a big upset over BC. THAT's that point.

If you were old enough to follow Cuse in the 80s, you would know Boeheim was hounded by the "can't win in the tourney" label, even after finally making it to the finals in '87, when he lost to no-name Indiana despite a rock star lineup of Rony Seikaly, Stevie Thomson, Sherman Douglas, Derrick Coleman and Billy Owens (are you kidding me?). You talk about close doesn't count...Keith Smart clangs that clutch 20 footer at the buzzer and no one maligns Boeheim. THAT's that point.

"A disservice to Cuse"...man this is getting tiresome debating someone who keeps missing the point. Here is a link to Boeheim's record at Cuse, see how many 1st and 2nd round exits there were with Top 10 teams in his early years: http://www.orangehoops.org/BBall.htm. THAT's that point.

I am on record as stating I would like to see Skinner go, just because the program has gotten a little stale for my liking. But I am also on record as stating that he has earned the right to leave when he chooses, unless and until he really founders. We are nowhere near that right now, we are one year removed from an NCAA tourney appearance, and wins over Duke and UNC. He would have to have at least 3 more sub-.500 seasons in a row before GDF would consider canning the winningest (by far) coach in BC history. Puh-lease. You can get in a telephone booth with all the sane people in the world who would agree with you that his job could be in jeopardy next year under any circumstances.

Lastly, I am only condsending because I am much, much more knowledgeable than you about hoops and BC. That said, I congratulate you on being bright enough to recognize that I was indeed being condescending, I thought that would go over your head. So you are "right" about one thing. Congratulations. Go get yourself a Rice Krispies treat for your lunchbox tomorrow.

BCGP said...

CT- I'm right there with you...

As for Harry, I'm not so sure that I follow the logic that Skinner needs to go, if he wants to, but it's necessary as long as he thinks it's necessary too because it is, under the assumption that he knows it is because that's what needs to happen, but he deserves the right to know himself that it's necessary if he prefers it.

Erik said...

"Almost" counts for C Weis & Domers

Blockparty said...

Harry = 2
CT = -2
(point deductions for lack of focus and cohesion and attempted passing off superficial knowledge as more than it is)

Danny Boy said...

Harry, despite all your bluster, CT was right about the rankings for the 2005 tournament. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament You'll also notice that UW-Milwaulkee trailed Illinois by 10 at halftime before getting beat by 14.

Besides, you're missing the point. Syracuse EXPECTS to not only make it to the tournament, but to contend for a conference title and make a run in the tournament. Their expectations are drastically different from the average BC fan who is just happy to be there.

Its clear that Skinner has taken us as far as he can. You say that we were 1 inbounds play away from making the Elite 8. You're correct, however inbounds plays have been a weakness for Skinner's entire tenure (so has breaking a press and midgame adjustments).

If Skinner has peaked with success, why not find someone who can take us to the next step? Surely there is a mid-major coach who has proven his coaching ability and would adore the larger audience that the ACC would provide him.

Skinner will always hold a bullet point in BC basketball history, but it doesn't mean he gets carte blanche to stay as long as he wants. He established us as a frequent contender for conference championships, but now its time to find someone like Boeheim who can establish us as a perennial contender and frequent winner of conference championships.

Opinionater said...

Harry Collins vs. ET ----a middle school, teenage "spat" on steroids. While booring and tiresome, I must give credit to your English teachers!

CT said...

Ok, i do admit that I was really outclassed by Harry the Terminator! but i still stand by my points (MY points)

Bravesbill said...


I would take Steve Fisher over Al any day of the week. If he could resurrect an SDSU basketball program that was pathetically bad for 20 years (pretty much since Tony Gwynn was their PG in the early '80s), he's a much better coach than Al. Plus, Fisher has shown he could win the big games in the Tourney when it counted. Al cannot.

Bill & Rob said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TBSBC03 said...

Yes, let's please get Steve Fisher, who was fired because he oversaw one of the dirtiest programs of the '90's and sent it into a tailspin they haven't yet recovered from. Good thought, Bravesbill.

TBSBC03 said...

Also, Claver, to answer your question....it may have changed in the last month or so, but until recently we had the third most conference wins in the ACC since we joined, behind Duke and Carolina.

Claver2010 said...

TSBC, we are 7th behind teams with such storied pasts as FSU & VTech.

TBSBC03 said...

Well, if you're going to ask rhetorical information, you could at least provide links to the source.

Claver2010 said...


Don't think my numbers are wrong but feel free to verify.

Harry Collins said...

Danny Boy...I'm missing the point? Here's my comment from earlier in the thread:

"The Boeheim comparison is not apples to apples because Cuse's program is at a level above BC's, and always has been. "

You're the one missing the point, pal, which is that Boeheim was maligned for years because he could not get 'Cuse to Final Fours (the BC equivalent of a Sweet 16), and when he finally did get there with one of the most loaded teams in NCAA history, he got completely outcoached by Bobby Knight in the final. He then followed that up with some very early exits (based on seeding), the most egregious of which was No. 15 Santa Clara over No. 2, still to date the biggest upset in NCAA hoop history. I happen to think the criticism was pretty meritless - some things a coach can't coach, like Keith Smart canning an incredibly clutch jumper from the wing, and Sean Marshall falling fast asleep in one of the biggest moments of his career. I also think that 90% of the teams, regardless of pedigree, are tough outs in the tourney, which is why making a deep run should not be the litmus test for a "great" coach. Once the ball goes up, the fight's on.

The point that I actually took issue with was CT's bizarre proposition that Skinner's job is in jeopardy NEXT year if BC does not have a winning season. No way in all f'ing hell that happens. There is a business side to college basketball, and it is not good business to throw the winningest coach in program history to the curb after 2 bad seasons. The more success aq coach has, the longer the leash, and Skinner has earned a long leash...3-4 years of bad results at least in my view. But certainly not two. When CT gets his braces removed, he may have an epiphany on this. I mean, c’mon.

Like him or hate him, Skinner is one of the most accomplished coaches in the ACC. I mean, what coach in the league is more accomplished than Skinner? Definitely Roy Williams and Coach K, a couple of sure-fire HOF'ers. Gary Williams too, with his NC in 2004, though he has some serious critics in DC and has only made the tourney 3 times in the past 6 years (all three 2nd round losers). After that, who? Here's the conference lineup, which may make you naysayers appreciate Skinner and his 7 of 9 record a nudge more:

1. Oliver Purnell, Clemson. Mr. 17-0 out of conference, 7-9 in conference. 7 years on the job, 2 NCAA appearances, 2 first round losers. You think Skinner is criticized for post season inemptitude?

2. Gino Gaudio, Wake. Interim coach who grabbed the job with a modicum of success. 1 NCAA appearance, 1st round losers.

3. Frank Haith, Miami. 5 years at the U, 1 NCAA appearance , 2nd round losers.

4. Seth Greenberg, VTech. 7 years on the job, 1 NCAA appearance, 2nd round losers.

5. Leonard Hamilton, Fla State. 7 years at the helm, 1 NCAA appearance, 1st round losers.

6. Paul Hewitt, GTech. Surprise NCAA runner up in 2004, but only been back to the dance twice since, 1 1st round loser, 1 2nd round loser.

7. Sidney Lowe, NC State. The Charlie Weis of college basketball, an alum who took the job after everyone else turned it down. 4 years on the job and no NCAA appearances.

'Nuff said.

CT said...

Harry -- you know your stuff! Let me finally tip my hat to you.

Ry said...

harry may know his stuff, but he doesn't know the first name of wake's coach.

also, to pick a nit here...you can complain about BC not signing a recruit this year, but that does not mean they didn't recruit anyone as mmason said above. i am fine with them taking a pass on a recruiting year if you can't sign the guy you want. no sense bringing in a player who you don't really want only to have him sit around for a couple of years before transferring. the decision not to sign a recruit for this year gave us the flexibility to bring in three guys for next year, a class that might actually be worth a damn. of all the arguments about the trouble with this year's team, the one centering on not having a single freshman might be the least sensible.

blockparty said...

the REAL blockparty doesnt agree or disagree with either and wasnt planning on commenting on this anyway, so whoever is also using the name, enjoy.

CT said...

Enjoy using my name. You might get smarter. Whatever.

Some people lack the ability to defend their position with class. And respect. Way to go, buddy! Er, pal.

I said Skinner should be on the hot seat, not that he will. I have no idea what GDF is thinking, perhaps you do, I don't know. Don't twist what I say to make a point, please. Poor form. The reason I say that is, again, for the reading-comprehension-challenged, about ceilings, about expectation, about potential, all of which I've enunciated before. I'm not going to get back into it b/c you seem to focus on one thing and it's not even what I was saying. It's an opinion. Should. Not will. Should. S.H.O.U.L.D. Big big difference, ya' know?

You are right about one thing: it's a business decision. What with Conte coming alive the last few years, with the fanbase as passionate as it is, with another program bruise from hitting the ceiling, Skinner has earned the right to leave...wait, when? When he wants to as you said earlier...or is it now after 3 or 4more bad years? You don't have to answer that. I'll be at the dentist's so I won't read it.

Perhaps he's a lifer at BC, in which case I look forward to having this conversation with you again in a couple of years.

By the way, Richmond beat Syracuse, I thought, and Santa Clara beat Arizona. And that upset of Syracuse pales in comparison to NC State/Houston and Villanova/G'town, for example. Just sayin'.

(fake)CT said...

I didn't get smarter; i got all smug and self important. I look in the mirror a lot now. I keep pretending I am hip. I am scared.