Would more money have helped us be able to not turn it over five times on BLOB plays vs Iowa. Come on, five low major kids should be able to do that. Thats about coaching, scheme and effort. Like Fluoxetine says, sure more money is always better than less but it’s not your primary problem when such a fundamental part of the game is executed so poorly and there’s no accountability.
What is most discouraging about this team, and there are many possibilities
- Thread starter RU677381
- Start date
Huh? I wasn’t talking about Pike’s philosophy on how he coached this team. Once he brought in the portal players he chose who are not the type of kids who fit his system - that was the beginning of the end.
You blamed the recruiting on lack of NIL and I’m disagreeing with that. I’m saying that we’d have a better team right now if Pike went with 4 transfers who are defense oriented kids rather than only one (Jordan - and again, that one never played collegiate man to man D).
Here’s a blind profile for you - okay? we both know the market for it would not cost bundles more than Acuff cost us - you won’t be able to suggest other wise with a straight face. Here it is:
Rising senior wing / SF who averaged 23 min per game on a fringe tournament caliber team. 5.7 ppg / 4.3 rpg / 1.6 apg / 1.5 spg. Shot 20.4% from 3 and 31.7% overall from the field.
The thing is - we didn’t even need a kid who would turn out to be the national defensive player of the year the next year. We just needed willing defenders who would buy in to pike’s system to surround the stars with. We brought in finesse shooters instead. That and a kid who only played collegiate zone.
Money would help, but it’s not why we don’t have a tournament level team.
It has nothing to do with how this team was coached. It’s the players - but it’s not only money. As I said, 3 position appropriate kids with the game style of Austin Williams would have been more helpful than what we brought in besides Jordan. Not every kid is going to pan out - whether they succeed or not Derek Simpson, Austin Williams, Tez, Caleb fit our system for better or worse. We had 2 all stars coming in. We needed them to be surrounded by our traditional hard nosed defenders. Instead - Pike hoped he would get a Cam Spencer out of one of the mid-major kids. The problem was Cam’s defense is also way better than the guys we brought in. Pike didn’t seem to account for that. This is where we went wrong in my opinion. Again - it’s not money. None of the guys I mention above would’ve cost a lot of money. I’m not talking about Caleb once he was DPOY rather the 2 seasons before that. We needed kids like that. Not so much focus on shooting percentages as we wanted Ace and Dylan to take most of the shots anyway.
But moreso - we needed a rim protector. Shaq Doorson would’ve been a massive help to this team and he wouldn’t have been expensive.
Agreed. At the same time, he could have missed on some evals. Betting on Martini to influence Allocco to come could also could be on him.
I love Pike - but he’s made and will make mistakes.
This is a well thought out and reasonable criticism.
Yes he picked the wrong players
That was the rumor but I actually attribute part of it to a failure pattern observed from the prior year. Pike might put too much emphasis on how players look against his team. He overvalued Noah Fernandes in this regard and I think it’s possible the same might be said of Martini. They played well against Rutgers so Pike focused on that.
Yes absolutely. the wrong players within the budget he had. Flawed priorities.
I'll handle this one.
I know the response you're going to get.
HC Pike didn't pick the wrong players.
He picked the best players he could get - because he's shopping in the bargin bin because of our whiny, cheap, poor fanbase.
The right players cost too much.
There were litetally zero "right players" that HC Pike could afford. Only wrong players were available.
If you want the right players then start donating and stop complaining.
How did I do? I think I nailed it.
They’re not mutually exclusive as PSAL pointed out. NIL limited his pool of options and he chose the wrong ones from the pool.
Let's be realistic, we thought we were getting guys who could fill our glaring need for 3 pt shooters and they were not what was expected.
But who thought that. Acuff and Dercack had bad percentages from three the prior year. Martini was positionless for the B1G and Hayes was div 2. Maybe we needed shooting but those weren’t the guys.
What does poor talent evaluation and poor coaching (both player development and x's and o's) by the head coach who is responsible for all of that have to do with lack of money? Do you have a take on anything that doesn't involve around NIL and /or some insane look at me, over the top posts?
Not really.
Most everyone is shooting the same (except Davis and Hayes - but I have theories below).
The problem (like every year) is the low volume from our non Ace/Dylan shooters.
Our best shooters don't play and/or shoot.
The players who do play can't shoot.
Pre-Rutgers career 3pt% (this year 3pt %)
Derkack 26.3% (26.8%)
Acuff 32.8% (38.9%)
Martini 36.3% (36.4%)
Hayes 39.7% (32.7%)
JWill 25.5% (28.9%)
Davis 22.2% (34.2%)
3pt attempts per game
Acuff 2.7 (14mpg)
Martini 2.6 (17.3mpg)
Hayes 2.7 (11mpg)
Derkack 1.6 (19mpg)
JWill 1.5 (23.5mpg)
Davis 1.4 (18.3mpg)
Davis - is high from a couple good games (4/7 a lot). But he doesn't shoot 3s (which was a good strategy early). However, if he's actually better now - then he needs to shoot.
Hayes - I could attribute his significantly less shots to a lower average. Last year he was 5.8 attempts per game. Now under 3. He's going to be hit or miss with so few shot.
It's wrong to suggest Pike should have targeted better defensive players in the portal at the expense of offense. That puts even more of a scoring burden on Bailey and Harper. The strategy was sound. Find complementary scorers.
Harper and Bailey aren't willing or effective passers. Heck, who is ? JWIll is the only one.
Harper and Bailey aren't willing or effective passers. Heck, who is ? JWIll is the only one.
Two truly discouraging things about this team are the lack of defense and rebounding. I've come to live with the bad shooting. There's always been plenty of that.
This
Actually - this is statistically Pike’s second best 3 point shooting team at Rutgers - we’re currently 33.3%. The best one finished at 33.6% in 2021-22 - so it’s still possible to surpass that and have this team finish as the best. Point being - it’s inaccurate to say we expected shooting to be better and that’s where we went wrong.
Taking a closer look - Tyson Acuff is shooting 39% from 3. Martini is shooting 36.4%. J Mike is over 34% which is better than would’ve been expected pre-season. Ace and Dylan have been solid from the perimeter. This is far from our biggest problem.
The real problem, actually, in simplest terms is that last season, our shooting became so historically rate limiting that it caused Pike to sell his soul to make sure it was corrected rather than trusting that the issue would correct itself with the addition of the two star. So he brought in Jordan as his only “program” player who fit the culture. Tough nosed kid who can’t shoot a lick but is a fearless penetrator and hustles on D despite being lost at times in the man schemes. Guess whose played the most minutes of the transfers? Pike got what he wanted per your point above out of the others. They are all shooting over 32% from long range which is a vast improvement over last year’s team average. None of them play Pike style D. So we have finesse defenders to complement a bunch of frosh playing for a coach whose style is to create offense from D. What did we expect?
The fly in the ointment is that all of "Pikes Guys" (JWill, Davis and Derkack) are playing more than the "Offensive Transfers" (Martini, Acuff and Hayes).
Hard to blame the ongoing defensive failures on the 8th, 9th and 10th guys on the team.
JWill is the only one? He's not even in the teams top three in asst %, but he does have a + 20% turnover rate!
Actually - no. I blame the defensive failures on using the open spots on the roster to bring in those 3 guys instead of targeting potential replacements for Cliff, Mag and yes, even Hyatt’s defense in the post. Even Hyatt who I’ve been a huge critic of on the defensive end, was still a multi year experienced player in Pike’s system. His D was suspect in past years but had graduated to servicable in the 4 slot last season. When you remove those 3 guys and Derek who is an excellent rebounding guard despite his height limitations and was the best defensive guard on the roster - there is was major hole on D that needed to be filled.
We brought in zero post players from the portal who play defense. We decided to roll with Lathan and so we got what we got. I’m not blaming the guys who are sitting for this, rather I’m saying we could’ve used those spots to bring in other guys who could’ve helped.
My point though is even if you brought in other transfers - wouldn't they be on the bench?
The problem is that JWill and Davis (and Derkack) playing so many minutes with subpar defense in addition to limited offense.
Unless the others transfers are taking their spots then how much would really change?
The problem (as I see ulit) isn't replacing or upgrading over Martini, Acuff and Hayes.
It's that we didn't upgrade over JWill and Davis.
No - that’s the point. They would not. The guys we brought in are not good enough defenders to beat out J Mike or J Will. They aren’t even good enough to fill in spot minutes for J Will when he picks up stupid fouls. There is a major drop off on D when J Will doesn’t play and he isn’t the smartest player so that isn’t a great thing, believe me, but this team would be a good deal worse without J Will. Of that much I’m certain.
Regardless, the front court is a much bigger issue than the backcourt. Lathan, Dortch and Grant are getting those minutes because we brought in finesse shooters (Martini and PJ) instead of recruiting physical players who can defend on the post. Those frosh should’ve been the replacements for Wolf and Oskar - not the replacements for Hyatt, Mag and Cliff. That’s the biggest problem.
In terms of guards, your sort of right. We already had Davis and J Will and we were bringing in a stud in Dylan to replace Noah Fernandes. We didn’t need another high usage guard. At least not as one of our first recruits out of the portal. And we didn’t need a stretch 4 who could shoot threes but plays soft (Martini). And we certainly didn’t need a forward who shot some threes on a weak team and graded out as one of the worst defenders in the country. No - the recruiting strategy made no sense at all.
Would Geo’s team turned it over 5 times on BLOB plays vs Iowa? No. Because they had the talent to minimize turnovers. Part of the reason we are executing poorly and there’s no accountability is because there’s no talent. Who do we replace Ace with when he’s in his dreadful 3-17 shooting funk? There’s nobody else.
My thesis is poor NIL was the biggest reason the season is so disappointing. Money was the biggest constraint in landing the supporting talent we did. I would refer you to Marylands 3 transfers who account for >70% of their scoring. These transfers did not come cheap. According to Maryland fan:
- Gillespie got $375K
Jumping in here late, mostly because I want to know what a BLOB play is? Also, we average less TOs a game this year than we did in any of Geo's years. Mayne less than any of Pike's years.
Lonely Al of Manti Teo….how big is Marquette’s NIL war chest ? And does every bball player there get his own glorious Fieldhouse ?
One criticism of Pikiell is that he did not do enough to raise NIL money. That leads me to ask: what did Greg Schiano do to raise NIL money that Pikiell did not do?
BTW, as I've said time and again, the landscape will be totally transformed if (as expected) the court approves the House v. NCAA anti-trust settlement next month. If it does, schools will be paying players directly (subject to an overall salary cap) and NIL collectives will essentially be out of business because NIL will no longer be allowed as a recruitment/retention incentive.
BTW, as I've said time and again, the landscape will be totally transformed if (as expected) the court approves the House v. NCAA anti-trust settlement next month. If it does, schools will be paying players directly (subject to an overall salary cap) and NIL collectives will essentially be out of business because NIL will no longer be allowed as a recruitment/retention incentive.
NIL wasn’t allowed as a recruitment/retention incentive 5 years ago or earlier.
How did they work out?
Never underestimate the desperation for validation CFB “boosters” need by seeing their alma mater win.
They aren’t just going to stop wanting…needing CFB/CBB coaches to court them or make them feel important.
Booster will continue to pay players above and beyond revenue sharing.
Last edited:
Biggest disappointment: one better defensive or offensive possession and we would have won vs Bama, A&M, Kennesaw, Princeton plus others that were there for the taking and we let them get away.
Difference between victory and defeat is so damn thin.
I don't understand your response to my post. Maybe it's me.
Schiano and Pikiell, as you well know, are coaches for us now in an era in which NIL is important. Pikiell is being criticized for not doing enough to raise NIL. So I'm just wondering what Schiano has done that Pikiell ought to be doing.
And yes, there will be boosters just as before NIL. But the situation will be the same as it was before NIL: booster activity will go back to being against the rules. The only difference between next year and the pre-NIL era is that it will be possible for a school (but not boosters) to pay players
If only schiano won his conference or had any actual success at any level or not been fired by every organization he was in except Rutgers oh an PSU( where he helped cover up the largest crime in NCAA football history).Wrong.
If only Pike and Schiano didn't have such cheap, whiny, horrible fans then they would have both won 4 straight championships already.
And looking at winning the next 10 straight championships.
Not exactly. It used to be point blank against the rules for players to earn any money directly or indirectly related to their “name, image and likeness” as a basketball player.
Now there will be a valuation committee assessing the validity of any deals that do not come through the school. If I had to guess, I’d say that outside of a small handful of high school recruits (top 5 type kids like Ace, Dylan, etc. who have legitimate deals from 3rd party sneaker companies and such coming out of high school) this will be the end of high school booster pay for play. There’s no market value for the brand of the 50th ranked kid on the HS circuit. Nobody is paying big bucks for that kid’s autograph or to use that kid in a commercial based on long term potential. A random tire company owned by a booster will no longer be able to stick a kid in a commercial (that clearly doesn’t benefit or even relate to the company) and hand them a bag as a legitimate NIL deal.
But established players will be interesting. They still won’t be able to be plopped into BS tire commercials but kids with a real brand tied either to school or their own success as an individual player could have legitimate 3rd party offers. The boosters job will likely become about making the case of this legitimacy to offer competitive packages that pass the valuation review. If you think about it from a vendor management perspective, the 3 quote rule comes to mind. It won’t be exactly that but typically secondary market pricing is verified by collecting 3 independent quotes for the same service. If only one company is willing to “pay” for a kid’s appearance in a commercial at $1M will that be good enough? Deloitte is a reputable big 4 audit firm so I’m guessing not… We really don’t yet know how this will play out. It should be better than the Wild West though - at least a little bit. I’m hopeful, that player development might be restored somewhat as there could be incentive to build a brand with a school. Jersey Mikes would be more likely to contract a well known veteran senior Rutgers starter than a first year transfer new to the program. One would think.
I don’t think most teams actually have rim protectors. They are hard to find and pay. We can win without one although certainly more rebounders would help.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Baseball GAME THREAD: Rutgers versus Grand Canyon -- Game Three- Latest: rubaseball78
-
-
