The Official Beat the Memphis Tigers in Tennessee Thread

Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Posts
1,057
Likes
910
Yes, however we can get to Richmond level without being at Richmond’s level. Meaning our expectations are higher than Richmond. Therefore even though we may not have losing seasons we’ve still settled into accepting something less than stellar. Compared to past years and what supposedly the aim of our administration is
I get that. Still, we are not there yet. Like someone else said, miss the tourney this year and next and maybe the seat is getting warm.

Why focus on it right now? We’re 3-2 with no bad losses (yes, one embarrassing performance) and we have lost our first team All-A10 pg.

He needs to fix the darn offense, that’s for sure. I’m more tired of the turnovers and offensive efficiency at this point than I am for missing the tourney.
 

Mr X

Insider
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Posts
144
Likes
178
Shaka did well because he had a really good group of assistants that worked well together. When he got to Texas, he moved towards more recruiting assistants than coaching assistants and it didn’t work well for him.
So what do we have now? Asking for my wife.
 

Mr X

Insider
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Posts
144
Likes
178
I mean that wasn’t because of Shaka. Shaka didn’t run off to interviews constantly. In fact it was known his wife pushed him to go. It’s not like he personally was dangling us every year trying to actively leave.
But there was always that threat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SWV

Mistachill

Elite Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Posts
17,887
Likes
30,028
We've had 5 coaches in 17 seasons, including 3 in a 4-year stretch. That's a lot. I wonder how many programs have been able to maintain a level of success with that many changes. I wonder how many schools have even had that many coaches in the last 17 seasons. Are we in the 'constant coaching change category" (nice alliteration, by the way)? No, but that is in part because of Rhoades.

I also know how the changes, specifically the 3 in 4 years impacted recruiting. As much as we want to believe that kids come to VCU because it's VCU, the reality is that players go to a school because of the coach and staff. Other staffs used the changes against us in recruiting and it had an impact. Thankfully, that impact is gone because of the stability we have at the coaching position.
You can play that game all day depending on what window of time you want to look at. We've also had 7 coaches is 34 years.

Also, here is the context you're not mentioning regarding coaching changes:

McCarthy to Capel - we got a better coach
Capel to Grant - we got a better coach
Grant to Smart - we got a better coach

It's a hard argument to reference constant coaching changes when we ended up with a better coaches.

Smart to Wade - we may have taken a step down, however, Wade kept us at the same level Shaka had us at the time of his departure.
Wade to MR - opinions vary.

So if you want to put a microscope on that that three year window from 2015 to 2017 between Shaka's final year, Wade's two years, and MR's first year and say constant coaching changes is the reason our program not being where we want it to be, especially given that Shaka's six years and MR's six year sandwich Wade's two years, I think that's a tough sell. For a mid-major having a Mark Few hang around for 24 year is the exception and not the rule. I don't think "constant coaching changes" at VCU is a valid talking point.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Posts
2,622
Likes
2,677
But there was always that threat.

Which would you rather have? A team that underperforms with a stable coach or a team that makes runs but has a coach that may move on because they are highly regarded? Unless you are Mark Few that’s how college works. If you have a coach for awhile and he’s not in demand that’s saying something.
 

artRAMinMN

Elite Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Posts
11,611
Likes
15,453
Which would you rather have? A team that underperforms with a stable coach or a team that makes runs but has a coach that may move on because they are highly regarded? Unless you are Mark Few that’s how college works. If you have a coach for awhile and he’s not in demand that’s saying something.
It's not just those 2 options though... there are many teams who have fired a coach ... then fired the next one too... then another, etc
 

theyaintwantit

Elite Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Posts
2,778
Likes
7,579
But you also have to account for last season when we imploded in the two most important games of the season with a tournament bid there for the taking. Then 2020 when we start the season 16-5 and somehow ended up 18-13. Not sure bad luck can be considered the reason for those two outcomes. I have no problem giving MR a pass on 2018 and credit for 2019.
For what it’s worth, I still believe losing to Wagner and Chattanooga and not winning the UConn game in Atlantis hurt us more then not winning at SLU and beating Richmond in DC. I say this because since the A10 expanded to an 18 game schedule, the only team to go 14-4 and NOT make the NCAAs was St Bona in 2016. Now conference record doesn’t mean everything in the eyes of the committee, but we did more than enough in the A10 to typically warrant a bid. That still doesn’t excuse laying an egg vs Richmond but it appears that just that game didn’t leave us out of the NCAAs.
 

Mistachill

Elite Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Posts
17,887
Likes
30,028
For what it’s worth, I still believe losing to Wagner and Chattanooga and not winning the UConn game in Atlantis hurt us more then not winning at SLU and beating Richmond in DC. I say this because since the A10 expanded to an 18 game schedule, the only team to go 14-4 and NOT make the NCAAs was St Bona in 2016. Now conference record doesn’t mean everything in the eyes of the committee, but we did more than enough in the A10 to typically warrant a bid. That still doesn’t excuse laying an egg vs Richmond but it appears that just that game didn’t leave us out of the NCAAs.
Yeah, you can go back and pick out games in any season and say "would of, could of." That early in the season nobody could know the impact of those early schedule loses. However, late in the season we knew those were must win games and knew the implications of not winning those games and not only did we not win them, we didn't come like looking ready to play.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Posts
2,622
Likes
2,677
For what it’s worth, I still believe losing to Wagner and Chattanooga and not winning the UConn game in Atlantis hurt us more then not winning at SLU and beating Richmond in DC. I say this because since the A10 expanded to an 18 game schedule, the only team to go 14-4 and NOT make the NCAAs was St Bona in 2016. Now conference record doesn’t mean everything in the eyes of the committee, but we did more than enough in the A10 to typically warrant a bid. That still doesn’t excuse laying an egg vs Richmond but it appears that just that game didn’t leave us out of the NCAAs.

Committee looks at late season performances harder than early season. That’s long been known they pick who is hot. Finish the job against Davidson at home, don’t get blown out at home by Dayton, get a win at SLU as well get a couple of wins in the A10 tourney and we would have been right in the discussion/possibly in.
 

theyaintwantit

Elite Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Posts
2,778
Likes
7,579
Yeah, you can go back and pick out games in any season and say "would of, could of." That early in the season nobody could know the impact of those early schedule loses. However, late in the season we knew those were must win games and knew the implications of not winning those games and not only did we not win them, we didn't come like looking ready to play.
I disagree about knowing the impact of the early schedule losses, but I do agree that we knew the SLU and Richmond games were huge. SLU game sucked, but we won 8 straight prior to that so that game never really irked me. I just hoped we’d forget about it quickly, but apparently we didn’t because we threw up an even worse goose egg against Richmond in DC.
 

Mistachill

Elite Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Posts
17,887
Likes
30,028
I disagree about knowing the impact of the early schedule losses, but I do agree that we knew the SLU and Richmond games were huge. SLU game sucked, but we won 8 straight prior to that so that game never really irked me. I just hoped we’d forget about it quickly, but apparently we didn’t because we threw up an even worse goose egg against Richmond in DC.
I disagree. Hypotheticially, if we had gone undefeated the rest of the regular season after the UConn game, those loses wouldn't impact us getting to the dance. On the flip side, if we go .500 the rest of the season, those loses are meaningless. That's why I say it's impossible to truly know the impact that early in the season. We can certainly speculate and project though.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Posts
2,622
Likes
2,677
I disagree. Hypotheticially, if we had gone undefeated the rest of the regular season after the UConn game, those loses wouldn't impact us getting to the dance. On the flip side, if we go .500 the rest of the season, those loses are meaningless. That's why I say it's impossible to truly know the impact that early in the season. We can certainly speculate and project though.

I think realistically if Dayton and VCU got to the semis the winner goes to the NCAA. But if they played a really tough game maybe just maybe both get a nod with Davidson especially if one of them beat Davidson in the final. Dayton and VCU both came off hot streaks. If you are the committee you are sitting there going that’s a shame to see them play before the final. Again likely it’s only 2 but maybe the committee thinks a bit on that. Again this is pure speculation.
 
Last edited:

theyaintwantit

Elite Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Posts
2,778
Likes
7,579
I disagree. Hypotheticially, if we had gone undefeated the rest of the regular season after the UConn game, those loses wouldn't impact us getting to the dance. On the flip side, if we go .500 the rest of the season, those loses are meaningless. That's why I say it's impossible to truly know the impact that early in the season. We can certainly speculate and project though.
That’s valid. Regardless, winning is the most important thing. It doesn’t always matter when the big and crucial wins takes place, but winning cures all.
 

VCU85

Elite Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2016
Posts
4,705
Likes
7,675
Yeah, you can go back and pick out games in any season and say "would of, could of." That early in the season nobody could know the impact of those early schedule loses. However, late in the season we knew those were must win games and knew the implications of not winning those games and not only did we not win them, we didn't come like looking ready to play.
The committee does reward late season wins more than early season losses, and rightly so, but I think the mood has always been when we lose those games we think they’re a factor, and for a mid major I think they are more so than for the P5’s
 
Top