CVS Contract Extension?

[Doctor Worm]

From nj.com, May 12, 2016:
Hobbs told NJ Advance Media Thursday that he is working towards giving coach C. Vivian Stringer a new four-year contract.

From nj.com January 13, 2017:
Hobbs said earlier this week that Rutgers and Stringer are "still working through the final part of a contract'' and he expects to have the extension finalized "in a couple of weeks.''

Talk about slow-playing a potential signee! Is there anyone out there who believes this will get done? At this point I would be shocked, but then I've been shocked before.

BTW, if CVS is terminated prior to April 30, she is owed 35% of the remaining balance of the contract, which I assume would be 35% of $700,000. If terminated on May 1 or thereafter, she is owed 50% of the remaining balance.

 

[MADHAT1]

Think the extension is on hold till after this season ends.
Then Hobbs will decide if CVS is going to be brought back , forced into retirement or terminated because she won't retire on her own.
Any extension, if Hobbs decides Vivian deserves another year ( for whatever reason he chooses) will be completely RU friendly and ( just guessing) with an unwritten understanding that Stringer will retire if the 2017-18 isn't a winning one or even earlier , if next season is looking bad by the time conference play starts.

I believe Hobbs wants to bring back CVS,but the way this season has been is making him have second thoughts.
Also I think every RU WBB supporter who would like to see Vivian return can understand why those second thoughts

 

[rut08]

I thought I read in the NJ article that there has been some back and forth between the two sides which was prolonging the extension. I can imagine Stringer wants a little more security than what was given to her in the last contract, and Rutgers wants to set the stage for her retirement. I don't think this season has much to do with the decision to extend. Both sides knew that this wasn't going to be a good season (even though I don't think anyone was prepared for how disastrous its been).

 

[richthedentist]

Both sides know it is not going to be a good season next year nor the year after nor the year after etc. etc. She needs to be terminated April 29; If Hobbs keeps her on I will have lost some faith in Hobbs because the womens team is a trainwreck and nothing is going to change while she is still the coach!!!

 

[MADHAT1]

Both sides know it is not going to be a good season next year nor the year after nor the year after etc. etc. She needs to be terminated April 29; If Hobbs keeps her on I will have lost some faith in Hobbs because the womens team is a trainwreck and nothing is going to change while she is still the coach!!!

No both sides don't know if it will be a good season or not and that's why Hobbs is considering bringing Stringer back after this train-wreck of a season.

There are some reasons to think next season will be a good one and there are reasons not to be sure that will happen.
In other words: it depends on how we look at it and you look it in the negative.
If Hobbs looks at it your way, next year you might be complaining about another RU WBB HC [winking]
I'll be more optimistic and look it on the positive side and expect a NCAA appearance.
Would guess if CVS comes back, that's the way Hobbs sees it [thumb2]

 

[RutgersDon]

Terrible recruiting,poor coaching and totally non-competitive in the B10.The attendance at home games is a joke.
Whats the positive except that CVS starts in?
Get us a new HC for wbb.

 

[Turtle31]

Right now, IMO, the only thing that would secure her another year is respect for past achievements.
I don't believe her coaching style and name recognition/reputation is enough to be consistently competitive in today's world of WCBB. There is not a strong argument to be made otherwise.
The program is irrelevent nationally, which is a shame. I say that selfishly, since I used to plan my winter work schedule around the homes games, which I enjoyed so much.

 

[Doctor Worm]

I have to believe that one way or another, Hobbs has already made his decision. Is there any more for him to learn? Will the next three weeks reveal any new data points? I think not.

And I continue to believe that if there were going to be a contract extension, it would have been finalized long ago.

It is of course possible that Hobbs chooses Door #3 - allow CVS to finish out her contract next year without an extension. Hope not though. That to me is the worst possible outcome. Unless of course, CVS voluntarily agrees to make next year her last. But I don't think CVS gives up her clipboard without a fight.

 

[MADHAT1]

I have to believe that one way or another, Hobbs has already made his decision. Is there any more for him to learn? Will the next three weeks reveal any new data points? I think not.

And I continue to believe that if there were going to be a contract extension, it would have been finalized long ago.

It is of course possible that Hobbs chooses Door #3 - allow CVS to finish out her contract next year without an extension. Hope not though. That to me is the worst possible outcome. Unless of course, CVS voluntarily agrees to make next year her last. But I don't think CVS gives up her clipboard without a fight.

I agree with CVS not ready to give up and I feel Hobbs is torn between thinking Vivian can right the ship next year and feeling time to go in new direction for the 2017-18 season

The more this season drags on without that extension, the more I think Hobbs is trying to convince Stringer to step down after this season is over, before he's forced to pull the plug.
But Vivian's past accomplishments might have him relent and give her one more shot to bring RU WBB back to the NCAA Tourney and maybe get the 25 ( at the moment)
to reach the 1000 plateau and the great PR the women's basketball program will get from it.

 

[richthedentist]

I have to believe that one way or another, Hobbs has already made his decision. Is there any more for him to learn? Will the next three weeks reveal any new data points? I think not.

And I continue to believe that if there were going to be a contract extension, it would have been finalized long ago.

It is of course possible that Hobbs chooses Door #3 - allow CVS to finish out her contract next year without an extension. Hope not though. That to me is the worst possible outcome. Unless of course, CVS voluntarily agrees to make next year her last. But I don't think CVS gives up her clipboard without a fight.

I agree with CVS not ready to give up and I feel Hobbs is torn between thinking Vivian can right the ship next year and feeling time to go in new direction for the 2017-18 season

The more this season drags on without that extension, the more I think Hobbs is trying to convince Stringer to step down after this season is over, before he's forced to pull the plug.
But Vivian's past accomplishments might have him relent and give her one more shot to bring RU WBB back to the NCAA Tourney and maybe get the 25 ( at the moment)
to reach the 1000 plateau and the great PR the women's basketball program will get from it.

25 more wins is 2 more years at least. Enough with the 1000 wins already we need to get this program turned in the right direction not worry about her getting 1000 wins that will just set this program back 5 more years

 

[MADHAT1]

Who knows what the future holds ? Maybe even good things for CVS & RU WBB :p

 

[oldtimer67]

Just some statistics to prolong the arguments about next year.

Defensively, RU is 3rd in the Big10 giving up 61.3 points per game. I know that everyone wants offense, but 2 things: games are won with a combination of offense and defense (the team wins that scores more points than the other team, whether it is 62 points or 92 points), and everyone longing for the WBB rankings from the past needs to remember that they were earned from defense.

Offensively, the team is last in the Big10 with 61.3 points per game.

That is a differential of 10.3 ppg.

So the question is, can next year's team can make up that differential. I could argue that the defense will be better next year (better players, longer bench, more experience) but for the sake of argument let's just say it will be about the same. So, can the offense improve by about 10-11 ppg? Some people think that just having Scaife back will make up most or all of that difference. But, Scaife is not the only "new" player on the roster next year. People keep arguing that there are no superstars in that group (other than Scaife), but that ignores the fact that there will be upgrades over this year's roster. Is there other evidence of the potential for improvement? Statistics show that there are clearly non-coaching opportunities to do just that. This year's team is last in the Big10 in FG % and 3 pt %. Sound familiar men bball fans?

The bottom line is that the women's team has as much chance for improvement as the men's team. Of course, the men's team has a superstar coach who has already taken a non-P5 school to the big dance, uh, once. Time will tell.

 

[DennisHajekRC84]

Getting 1000 wins is her job not Rutgers. You think if she gets even closer after next year she's going anywhere then?

To me it made total sense to give her next year if she had gotten close enough this year. But now it is likely a 2 year commit and that doesn't work. Too big a gamble.

If you're gonna move on now is the time. Shame. Was rooting for her but this is her own doing.

 

[waretown]

Getting 1000 wins is her job not Rutgers. You think if she gets even closer after next year she's going anywhere then?

To me it made total sense to give her next year if she had gotten close enough this year. But now it is likely a 2 year commit and that doesn't work. Too big a gamble.

If you're gonna move on now is the time. Shame. Was rooting for her but this is her own doing.

time to say goodbye to Viv, total collapse, attendance in the hundreds no bright out look for the future, she has a load of transfers next year, transfer rarely work out, and if tyler doesn't come back we will be worse than this year. she has the john Chaney outlook as to who gets the schollies, it has taken a toll and as long as she is here this program won't be competitive, she reminds me at this time in her career of Casey Stengel with the Mets, sad

 

[RutgersDon]

Just some statistics to prolong the arguments about next year.

Defensively, RU is 3rd in the Big10 giving up 61.3 points per game. I know that everyone wants offense, but 2 things: games are won with a combination of offense and defense (the team wins that scores more points than the other team, whether it is 62 points or 92 points), and everyone longing for the WBB rankings from the past needs to remember that they were earned from defense.

Offensively, the team is last in the Big10 with 61.3 points per game.

That is a differential of 10.3 ppg.

So the question is, can next year's team can make up that differential. I could argue that the defense will be better next year (better players, longer bench, more experience) but for the sake of argument let's just say it will be about the same. So, can the offense improve by about 10-11 ppg? Some people think that just having Scaife back will make up most or all of that difference. But, Scaife is not the only "new" player on the roster next year. People keep arguing that there are no superstars in that group (other than Scaife), but that ignores the fact that there will be upgrades over this year's roster. Is there other evidence of the potential for improvement? Statistics show that there are clearly non-coaching opportunities to do just that. This year's team is last in the Big10 in FG % and 3 pt %. Sound familiar men bball fans?

The bottom line is that the women's team has as much chance for improvement as the men's team. Of course, the men's team has a superstar coach who has already taken a non-P5 school to the big dance, uh, once. Time will tell.

Rubbish

 

[RUfinal4]

I think she is at 975 wins right now

Give her 1 more year to make it to 1000. With a couple of wins down the stretch and a 23 next year she can do it. Also she is 68 so may tell her we want her until her 70th birthday where she can help recruit her replacement.

Extend her at $1mil a year Plus $250k for an NCAA berth and $100k for the 1,000th win (if in the next season) and $50k if it comes afterwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Vivian_Stringer

plus this year's results
http://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/team/schedule/_/id/164/rutgers-scarlet-knights

 

[DennisHajekRC84]

I think she is at 975 wins right now

Give her 1 more year to make it to 1000. With a couple of wins down the stretch and a 23 next year she can do it. Also she is 68 so may tell her we want her until her 70th birthday where she can help recruit her replacement.

Extend her at $1mil a year Plus $250k for an NCAA berth and $100k for the 1,000th win (if in the next season) and $50k if it comes afterwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Vivian_Stringer

plus this year's results
http://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/team/schedule/_/id/164/rutgers-scarlet-knights

I hear you but what if she gets to 978-979 and then another 15-16 next year. You think she is getting let go within say 5-6 of 1000? That's my point.

Hey, if she get's to 1000 by winning 20+ next year why would you want her gone?

 

[MADHAT1]

Just some statistics to prolong the arguments about next year.

Defensively, RU is 3rd in the Big10 giving up 61.3 points per game. I know that everyone wants offense, but 2 things: games are won with a combination of offense and defense (the team wins that scores more points than the other team, whether it is 62 points or 92 points), and everyone longing for the WBB rankings from the past needs to remember that they were earned from defense.

Offensively, the team is last in the Big10 with 61.3 points per game.

That is a differential of 10.3 ppg.

So the question is, can next year's team can make up that differential. I could argue that the defense will be better next year (better players, longer bench, more experience) but for the sake of argument let's just say it will be about the same. So, can the offense improve by about 10-11 ppg? Some people think that just having Scaife back will make up most or all of that difference. But, Scaife is not the only "new" player on the roster next year. People keep arguing that there are no superstars in that group (other than Scaife), but that ignores the fact that there will be upgrades over this year's roster. Is there other evidence of the potential for improvement? Statistics show that there are clearly non-coaching opportunities to do just that. This year's team is last in the Big10 in FG % and 3 pt %. Sound familiar men bball fans?

The bottom line is that the women's team has as much chance for improvement as the men's team. Of course, the men's team has a superstar coach who has already taken a non-P5 school to the big dance, uh, once. Time will tell.

Good points and we must remember RU had a terrible 2001-2 season, but were NCAA bound the next 10 seasons in a row.
I'm sure there were some that were wanting Stringer gone back then, figuring the program was doomed if she stayed because of how the 2001-2 season was.

 

[RutgersDon]

I think she is at 975 wins right now

Give her 1 more year to make it to 1000. With a couple of wins down the stretch and a 23 next year she can do it. Also she is 68 so may tell her we want her until her 70th birthday where she can help recruit her replacement.

Extend her at $1mil a year Plus $250k for an NCAA berth and $100k for the 1,000th win (if in the next season) and $50k if it comes afterwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Vivian_Stringer

plus this year's results
http://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/team/schedule/_/id/164/rutgers-scarlet-knights

I am tired of it.No more chances.She is getting slaughtered at home and on the road and her recruiting stinks.

 

[GL113]

Told by

I am tired of it.No more chances.She is getting slaughtered at home and on the road and her recruiting stinks.

A friend told me today that Bob Hurley Has been at every womens game this year sitting in section 118. Rumors are that ST. Anthony's will close in June. Do not want him for womens team,too old and no connection to WBB.

 

[mighty_knights]

I don't think the hold up is that Hobbs isn't sure what to do, but rather that he's hoping against hope she decides to step down on her own.

No one wants to be the one to fire a Hall of Fame coach. WhiIe it's justifiable, imagine the potential backlash. No win situation for him.

As for the arguments that we will be better next year...yes, maybe. But everyone fails to factor in the improvements made by our opponents. They're not exactly standing still.

 

[HeavenUniv.]

Could Hobbs make up some title (Director of Womens Sports, Director of Youth Outreach,etc.),give her that job for a couple years, and bring in a new coach in March/April ? This way,she is not fired-- she is going into a "New Opportunity" and Rutgers can try to make the program good again.

 

[oldtimer67]

Rubbish

Very intelligent reply.

 

[retired711]

time to say goodbye to Viv, total collapse, attendance in the hundreds no bright out look for the future, she has a load of transfers next year, transfer rarely work out, and if tyler doesn't come back we will be worse than this year. she has the john Chaney outlook as to who gets the schollies, it has taken a toll and as long as she is here this program won't be competitive, she reminds me at this time in her career of Casey Stengel with the Mets, sad

strange analogy. The Mets were always terrible under Stengel, and it wasn't Stengel's fault. He couldn't hit, field or pitch for those guys. The National League owners gave the Mets only the dregs of the league.

 

[ScarletDave]

Can't wait until we make the NCAAs next year and everyone will all of a sudden be flipped ... some can see the big picture, some think a new coach is an answer in response to a bad season record wise -> the program will be in much better shape if we make a new hire once Cviv retires after a very successful season (like next year) ... can't make a new hire after this year, will be like starting from scratch. CViv will bring us back, can't wait until next season so you all see.

 

[Doctor Worm]

Just some statistics to prolong the arguments about next year.

Defensively, RU is 3rd in the Big10 giving up 61.3 points per game. I know that everyone wants offense, but 2 things: games are won with a combination of offense and defense (the team wins that scores more points than the other team, whether it is 62 points or 92 points), and everyone longing for the WBB rankings from the past needs to remember that they were earned from defense.

Offensively, the team is last in the Big10 with 61.3 points per game.

That is a differential of 10.3 ppg.

So the question is, can next year's team can make up that differential. I could argue that the defense will be better next year (better players, longer bench, more experience) but for the sake of argument let's just say it will be about the same. So, can the offense improve by about 10-11 ppg? Some people think that just having Scaife back will make up most or all of that difference. But, Scaife is not the only "new" player on the roster next year. People keep arguing that there are no superstars in that group (other than Scaife), but that ignores the fact that there will be upgrades over this year's roster. Is there other evidence of the potential for improvement? Statistics show that there are clearly non-coaching opportunities to do just that. This year's team is last in the Big10 in FG % and 3 pt %. Sound familiar men bball fans?

The bottom line is that the women's team has as much chance for improvement as the men's team. Of course, the men's team has a superstar coach who has already taken a non-P5 school to the big dance, uh, once. Time will tell.

Perhaps, but defensive stats are extremely misleading. OK so RU is third in points allowed per game. Does that mean they are the third best defensive team in the league? Or does it mean that they limit the number of possessions in the game by taking so long to get into their offensive set, before forcing up a shot with the clock winding down? I think it is often the latter.

A low shooting percentage doesn't always mean you have bad shooters. It may mean you have an inefficient offense which produces low percentage shots.

I do think that with a more efficient offense, they can improve their offensive output by ten points per game. But that would likely mean (at least sometimes) getting layups and open threes from a more uptempo offense. Which means more possessions per game. Which means that other things equal, opponents' offensive output will also increase, although hopefully not by as much.

My point is that making up a -10 average point differential is IMHO more difficult than you make it sound. Perhaps Scaife can make a major dent in it. As to whether the other incoming players constitute an upgrade, we will have to wait and see. Time will tell. We agree on that.

 

[richthedentist]

Just some statistics to prolong the arguments about next year.

Defensively, RU is 3rd in the Big10 giving up 61.3 points per game. I know that everyone wants offense, but 2 things: games are won with a combination of offense and defense (the team wins that scores more points than the other team, whether it is 62 points or 92 points), and everyone longing for the WBB rankings from the past needs to remember that they were earned from defense.

Offensively, the team is last in the Big10 with 61.3 points per game.

That is a differential of 10.3 ppg.

So the question is, can next year's team can make up that differential. I could argue that the defense will be better next year (better players, longer bench, more experience) but for the sake of argument let's just say it will be about the same. So, can the offense improve by about 10-11 ppg? Some people think that just having Scaife back will make up most or all of that difference. But, Scaife is not the only "new" player on the roster next year. People keep arguing that there are no superstars in that group (other than Scaife), but that ignores the fact that there will be upgrades over this year's roster. Is there other evidence of the potential for improvement? Statistics show that there are clearly non-coaching opportunities to do just that. This year's team is last in the Big10 in FG % and 3 pt %. Sound familiar men bball fans?

The bottom line is that the women's team has as much chance for improvement as the men's team. Of course, the men's team has a superstar coach who has already taken a non-P5 school to the big dance, uh, once. Time will tell.

Perhaps, but defensive stats are extremely misleading. OK so RU is third in points allowed per game. Does that mean they are the third best defensive team in the league? Or does it mean that they limit the number of possessions in the game by taking so long to get into their offensive set, before forcing up a shot with the clock winding down? I think it is often the latter.

A low shooting percentage doesn't always mean you have bad shooters. It may mean you have an inefficient offense which produces low percentage shots.

I do think that with a more efficient offense, they can improve their offensive output by ten points per game. But that would likely mean (at least sometimes) getting layups and open threes from a more uptempo offense. Which means more possessions per game. Which means that other things equal, opponents' offensive output will also increase, although hopefully not by as much.

My point is that making up a -10 average point differential is IMHO more difficult than you make it sound. Perhaps Scaife can make a major dent in it. As to whether the other incoming players constitute an upgrade, we will have to wait and see. Time will tell. We agree on that.

This is the same crappie offense we have seen for years now. Pass it around til there is 5-6 seconds left on the 30 second clock and then force up a bad shot or turn the ball over. She has never had a good offense we just used to have such superior players like Cappie who masked the problem. It is time for a change

 

[RizwranIII]

Getting 1000 wins is her job not Rutgers. You think if she gets even closer after next year she's going anywhere then?

To me it made total sense to give her next year if she had gotten close enough this year. But now it is likely a 2 year commit and that doesn't work. Too big a gamble.

If you're gonna move on now is the time. Shame. Was rooting for her but this is her own doing.

And if CVS finally wins that 1000th game in 2 years from now,, then the 1000 win plateau is kind of a watered down achievement.

 

[RizwranIII]

I think she is at 975 wins right now

Give her 1 more year to make it to 1000. With a couple of wins down the stretch and a 23 next year she can do it. Also she is 68 so may tell her we want her until her 70th birthday where she can help recruit her replacement.

Extend her at $1mil a year Plus $250k for an NCAA berth and $100k for the 1,000th win (if in the next season) and $50k if it comes afterwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Vivian_Stringer

plus this year's results
http://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/team/schedule/_/id/164/rutgers-scarlet-knights

I don't even think CVS believes she will win 23 gmes next year.

 

[RizwranIII]

Told by

A friend told me today that Bob Hurley Has been at every womens game this year sitting in section 118. Rumors are that ST. Anthony's will close in June. Do not want him for womens team,too old and no connection to WBB.

GL nice post. Very interesting situation to ponder. I wonder how old he is.

 

[RizwranIII]

Could Hobbs make up some title (Director of Womens Sports, Director of Youth Outreach,etc.),give her that job for a couple years, and bring in a new coach in March/April ? This way,she is not fired-- she is going into a "New Opportunity" and Rutgers can try to make the program good again.

Nice idea, but don't see CVS's ego allowing her to do it.

 

[wngarbarini]

You are delusional if you think we make the NCAAs next year regardless who is on the team. We may not have a winning record.

 

[oldtimer67]

Perhaps, but defensive stats are extremely misleading. OK so RU is third in points allowed per game. Does that mean they are the third best defensive team in the league? Or does it mean that they limit the number of possessions in the game by taking so long to get into their offensive set, before forcing up a shot with the clock winding down? I think it is often the latter.

A low shooting percentage doesn't always mean you have bad shooters. It may mean you have an inefficient offense which produces low percentage shots.

I do think that with a more efficient offense, they can improve their offensive output by ten points per game. But that would likely mean (at least sometimes) getting layups and open threes from a more uptempo offense. Which means more possessions per game. Which means that other things equal, opponents' offensive output will also increase, although hopefully not by as much.

My point is that making up a -10 average point differential is IMHO more difficult than you make it sound. Perhaps Scaife can make a major dent in it. As to whether the other incoming players constitute an upgrade, we will have to wait and see. Time will tell. We agree on that.

Interesting arguments. Your first point seems to be that slowing down the offense results in fewer points being scored by the other team. This is true. It is also true that it is a COACHING strategy to limit the other teams points when your team does not have the talent to score very many. Maybe you should give CVS credit for this strategy. It is a strategy that has always been used by CVS and other coaches to stay in game when the other team is much more talented offensively. As a comparison, the Rutgers men are also last in scoring offense, and they are 5th in scoring defense. They have been in a lot of games by limiting the scoring of the other team and they are also critically challenged offensively.

A low shooting percentage does not always mean you have bad shooters. Take that one to the MBB board, too. Good shooters over time will find a way to get enough shots to not be the worst shooting team in the conference. You are really grasping at straws here.

First, you point out that the current type of offense results in other teams scoring fewer points. Now you want to play uptempo which will result in the other team scoring more points. The net result will be that the scoring differential that has to be made up will be much greater. For instance, you let the other team score ten ore PPG then you have to score 20 more PPG to get even. Seems to me it makes much more sense to keep the defense the same (including limiting the others teams' possessions) and work on scoring more points. Of course you have equated scoring more points with an uptempo offense. I disagree, I think making just 3 - 5 more shots per game is all that is needed to close that gap. I actually think that next year's team will make more than that many more shots. Scaife averaged 17.2 ppg last year and that was competing with Kahleah Copper for possessions. The highest scoring average this year is 10.9. Even without allowing for Scaife to have many ore opportunities next year than last year, that is an increase of 6.3 ppg. it is not beyond reason that the other additions can further increase the total by at least 4 ppg.

 

[RutgersDon]

The coaching world has passed her by

 

[RU old timer]

Supporting Stringer's return is not an intelligent reply.

 

[RU old timer]

0-13 on the road, and there are still people who support her return. What a joke.

 

[bac2therac]

Can't wait until we make the NCAAs next year and everyone will all of a sudden be flipped ... some can see the big picture, some think a new coach is an answer in response to a bad season record wise -> the program will be in much better shape if we make a new hire once Cviv retires after a very successful season (like next year) ... can't make a new hire after this year, will be like starting from scratch. CViv will bring us back, can't wait until next season so you all see.

lol...they didnt go to the NCAA 2 of the past 3 years with 4 WNBA type players..and you think they are going next year...reality check

 

[bac2therac]

Just some statistics to prolong the arguments about next year.

Defensively, RU is 3rd in the Big10 giving up 61.3 points per game. I know that everyone wants offense, but 2 things: games are won with a combination of offense and defense (the team wins that scores more points than the other team, whether it is 62 points or 92 points), and everyone longing for the WBB rankings from the past needs to remember that they were earned from defense.

Offensively, the team is last in the Big10 with 61.3 points per game.

That is a differential of 10.3 ppg.

So the question is, can next year's team can make up that differential. I could argue that the defense will be better next year (better players, longer bench, more experience) but for the sake of argument let's just say it will be about the same. So, can the offense improve by about 10-11 ppg? Some people think that just having Scaife back will make up most or all of that difference. But, Scaife is not the only "new" player on the roster next year. People keep arguing that there are no superstars in that group (other than Scaife), but that ignores the fact that there will be upgrades over this year's roster. Is there other evidence of the potential for improvement? Statistics show that there are clearly non-coaching opportunities to do just that. This year's team is last in the Big10 in FG % and 3 pt %. Sound familiar men bball fans?

The bottom line is that the women's team has as much chance for improvement as the men's team. Of course, the men's team has a superstar coach who has already taken a non-P5 school to the big dance, uh, once. Time will tell.

there is sheer delusion in this post

 

[Knight Time Fan]

Perhaps, but defensive stats are extremely misleading. OK so RU is third in points allowed per game. Does that mean they are the third best defensive team in the league? Or does it mean that they limit the number of possessions in the game by taking so long to get into their offensive set, before forcing up a shot with the clock winding down? I think it is often the latter.

A low shooting percentage doesn't always mean you have bad shooters. It may mean you have an inefficient offense which produces low percentage shots.

I do think that with a more efficient offense, they can improve their offensive output by ten points per game. But that would likely mean (at least sometimes) getting layups and open threes from a more uptempo offense. Which means more possessions per game. Which means that other things equal, opponents' offensive output will also increase, although hopefully not by as much.

My point is that making up a -10 average point differential is IMHO more difficult than you make it sound. Perhaps Scaife can make a major dent in it. As to whether the other incoming players constitute an upgrade, we will have to wait and see. Time will tell. We agree on that.

You make an interesting point. My take on the limiting possession thing is "Harry Paretta". Running down the shot clock has always seemed to be part of CVS's game (although, I swear, I have heard RU asst. coaches deny it). That said, a long time ago I talked to someone who truly knows the basics of CVS's system and transitional points (resulting from turnovers by the defense) are supposed to be a major feature of it.

Your comment about shooting percentage has its merits. I'm not sure that Viv's offense run the way she would like it run wouldn't result in good shooting opportunities - at times (for example, was it last year of the year before?) where we were shooting extraordinarily well on jumpshots. I have always - for years - thought that her vision and the team's execution don't match, and yes, I accept that there is probably plenty of blame to go around. I really don't think that Viv thinks the ball should be passed around until the shot clock runs out.

I really don't doubt that the team will perform better next year - I admit I have no idea.

To the other comment above regarding timing, for a number of reasons, I think next season will be better under CVS than not under CVS. I realize there are all kinds of consequences to that idea.

 

[RizwranIII]

You make an interesting point. My take on the limiting possession thing is "Harry Paretta". Running down the shot clock has always seemed to be part of CVS's game (although, I swear, I have heard RU asst. coaches deny it). That said, a long time ago I talked to someone who truly knows the basics of CVS's system and transitional points (resulting from turnovers by the defense) are supposed to be a major feature of it.

Your comment about shooting percentage has its merits. I'm not sure that Viv's offense run the way she would like it run wouldn't result in good shooting opportunities - at times (for example, was it last year of the year before?) where we were shooting extraordinarily well on jumpshots. I have always - for years - thought that her vision and the team's execution don't match, and yes, I accept that there is probably plenty of blame to go around. I really don't think that Viv thinks the ball should be passed around until the shot clock runs out.

I really don't doubt that the team will perform better next year - I admit I have no idea.

To the other comment above regarding timing, for a number of reasons, I think next season will be better under CVS than not under CVS. I realize there are all kinds of consequences to that idea.

This past recent comments on this post are the real deal. SERIOUSLY, there is no reason to continue to debate the CVS, go or stay issue anymore. The bottom line for posters that believe CVS should stay and be given a chance to show what she can do, is either an emotional attachment or basically not knowing all the facts and the history (as I have said in the past...when I constructively criticize CVS, I feel like many posters throw out the facts and ATTACK me like I'm attacking their Mom) These posters are emotionally bias (DMD included....very sad over the top criticizing me twice now and not addressing a poster calling me ABSURB, among other inappropriate posts...and never a following post...very sad DMD).

BOTTOM LINE: If Hobbs gives CVS any extension...our girls (women), fans and the program will suffer for years. If Hobbs has the strength to do his job and has truly investigated the CVS years, he will terminate her this year. She will NOT leave on her own. It is not in her DNA. She truly believes she is NOW a great coach.

Maybe the hundreds of fans in the stands disagree.

Be careful what you wish for.