Realistic expectations for 2023-24?

Donate To GopherHole
Oly O Hooper said:
4-16 type record. Remember other ‘lower level’ B10 teams are really improving; Nebraska, Penn St, Northwestern, Rutgers, etc. Mid-level teams Wisconsin, Maryland, Iowa, and Michigan won’t sit still / drop….. Honestly, who will we be better than??
Click to expand...

Only time will tell. Remember, we do have a homegrown example of a few players making a dramatic difference: freshman Coffey and transfers Lynch and Springs along with additional maturity with a few holdovers took us from an 8 win team in 2016 to a 24 win team in 2017. Of course, we also have a more recent example where 3 seemingly solid transfers and a pretty well regarded freshman didn't improve our fortunes at all from 2020 to 2021.

I don't expect lightening to strike twice with an improvement like we had from 2016 to 2017 but, given how terrible we are this year, we almost have to improve next year.
 

cjbfbp said:
Only time will tell. Remember, we do have a homegrown example of a few players making a dramatic difference: freshman Coffey and transfers Lynch and Springs along with additional maturity with a few holdovers took us from an 8 win team in 2016 to a 24 win team in 2017. Of course, we also have a more recent example where 3 seemingly solid transfers and a pretty well regarded freshman didn't improve our fortunes at all from 2020 to 2021.

I don't expect lightening to strike twice with an improvement like we had from 2016 to 2017 but, given how terrible we are this year, we almost have to improve next year.
Click to expand...
This is where you find out what Ben and his players are made of. After taking many beat downs this year the competitive spirit should kick in. It would be a shame if any other team in the country out works us this summer. If I am a player, or coach on this team I am pissed off and going to make myself better to make sure nothing like this happens again.
 


I hate the idea that we didn't hire Ben Johnson for a quick fix. This is basketball and it's 2023, it shouldn't take 3 years to be respectable, but I digress.

Next year's team looks, on paper, to be awful.

If Ihnen plays a lot of minutes at wing, I am done with Ben. It would mean that he not only makes terrible decisions, but then doesn't learn from them. It should have been obvious to him, but playing Battle at 3 has been a disaster (it was also also pretty obviously going to be a disaster). He has now even discussed how Battle is being forced to play a bit out of position. If he then doubles down on the exact same issue with Ihnen, it's over.

Just because someone is a plus shooter for a 4, doesn't make them a 3. The ability to handle the ball and play the game like a wing cannot simply be distilled down to "he is a decent shooter". If this is not abundantly clear now, it never will be.

I hope I'm wrong and Ihnen somehow evolved into a 3 during his time off but constantly hearing his name brought up as a 3 or even a 2 is frightening.
 

Wet_Blanket_Guy said:
LSU, Mississippi State, Kansas State, Missouri (you could even argue Penn State at this point)
Click to expand...

You have a very low threshold of "proof" for your theories.

Mississippi State hasn't had a losing season since 2016. They currently are 17-9 and 5-8 in the SEC. That's the worst conference record they've had since 2017. First year coach Jans current "turnaround" year in terms of overall winning percentage is very similar to former coach Howland's winning percentage from 2018 through 2020. FAIL!

LSU has been a good program for most of this century. They're currently having a losing season, their first since 2017. Their overall winning percentage in 2022 was almost identical to 2021 and 2020 and significantly below 2019; 2022 (the first season after the "open" portal began) was significantly less successful in-conference than the prior three. From 2019 through 2022 they made the NCAA tournament every time it was held and probably would have made it in 2020 if it had been held. FAIL!

Kansas State loaded up on transfers in 2022 and is doing quite well; this is their first winning season since 2019. Congratulations! You got one right. However, according to Verbal Commits, they got 7 transfers in 2022. I'm not sure that haul can be replicated very often (it would take close to dire circumstances like ours and Iowa State's in 2021 to pull that off).

Missouri has a new coach who was considered one of the hottest mid-major coaches in the last few years. Undoubtedly many programs wanted him. According to Verbal Commits, they had 4 incoming transfers but they were all from his former school (Cleveland State). I'd say this season's success is more indicative of a coaching change and a significant amount of shared experience between the new coach and the transfers.

Penn State - Don't look now but Penn State appears to be gradually settling into its familiar position within the conference (currently #11). FAIL!

Turns out that your "countless examples" of quick "turnarounds" due to portal transfers are quite countable - doesn't even take a full hand of fingers.
 
Last edited:


We have to stop being "realistic" and start having a standard. When Fleck got here a lot of people laughed at his antics but he has raised the bar to where we are disappointed with 9 win seasons.

Ben not having an actual BIG caliber pg is unacceptable. Not even in waiting do we have a viable option.

Ben has to make the tournament next year or he has to go, no question. The expectation here should be tournament every year. Doesn't mean it happens, but if you can't make it in 3, you're out. Set the precedent.
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
I hope I'm wrong and Ihnen somehow evolved into a 3 during his time off but constantly hearing his name brought up as a 3 or even a 2 is frightening.
Click to expand...

To be fair to Johnson, he was referring to Ihnen as a defensive 3 as I recall which is reasonably plausible (although I thought he was pretty good as a defensive 4). Unless there has been a dramatic improvement in his shooting and ball handling skills, I don't see him at all well suited to handling the offensive duties of that position.
 

cjbfbp said:
You have a very low threshold of "proof" for your theories.

Mississippi State hasn't had a losing season since 2016. They currently are 17-9 and 5-8 in the SEC. That's the worst conference record they've had since 2017. First year coach Jans current "turnaround" year in terms of overall winning percentage is very similar to former coach Howland's winning percentage from 2018 through 2020. FAIL!

LSU has been a good program for most of this century. They're currently having a losing season, their first since 2017. Their overall winning percentage in 2022 was almost identical to 2021 and 2020 and significantly below 2019; 2022 (the first season after the "open" portal began) was significantly less successful in-conference than the prior three. From 2019 through 2022 they made the NCAA tournament every time it was held and probably would have made it in 2020 if it had been held. FAIL!

Kansas State loaded up on transfers in 2022 and is doing quite well; this is their first winning season since 2019. Congratulations! You got one right. However, according to Verbal Commits, they got 7 transfers in 2022. I'm not sure that haul can be replicated very often (it would take close to dire circumstances like ours and Iowa State's in 2021 to pull that off).

Missouri has a new coach who was considered one of the hottest mid-major coaches in the last few years. Undoubtedly many programs wanted him. According to Verbal Commits, they had 4 incoming transfers but they were all from his former school (Cleveland State). I'd say this season's success is more indicative of a coaching change and a significant amount of shared experience between the new coach and the transfers.

Penn State - Don't look now but Penn State appears to be gradually settling into its familiar position within the conference (currently #11). FAIL!

Turns out that your "countless examples" of quick "turnarounds" due to portal transfers are quite countable - doesn't even take a full hand of fingers.
Click to expand...
Have you happened to actually read about the roster turnover at Mississippi State and LSU when these coaches took over...and further, you can include Missouri. Let me break it down for you:

Mississippi State: Lost 8 guys from last years team. 59% of the total minutes and 58% of the total scoring. He brought in portal players and HS recruits. They are 17-9 and 41 in KenPom (last year they were 49 in KenPom and 18-16...so how is this a loss in your mind?)

LSU: Matt McMahon: only 3 of the 13 scholarship players returned from the prior LSU season. He brought 3 players from his Murray State NCAA team, 4 HS recruits, and 3 portal players. While they are 12-14: they have a win against Arkansas. *This has started to mirror CBJ in Year 1 though*

Missouri: doesn't count in your mind...it's the coach (so does that mean CBJ is just terrible...?)

Penn State: They are 15-11 and KenPom of 48. This is not a fail. They have been a historically below average program. The only two bad losses they have is 2 against WI & @ Nebraska by 9 (in the Big10). They still may make the NCAA tournament. Last time in the NCAA tournament was 2011.
 



kix4kix said:
We have to stop being "realistic" and start having a standard. When Fleck got here a lot of people laughed at his antics but he has raised the bar to where we are disappointed with 9 win seasons.

Ben not having an actual BIG caliber pg is unacceptable. Not even in waiting do we have a viable option.

Ben has to make the tournament next year or he has to go, no question. The expectation here should be tournament every year. Doesn't mean it happens, but if you can't make it in 3, you're out. Set the precedent.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "we" have to have standards? This isn't a democracy where "we" get to vote to fire a coach when "we" feel he no longer deserves to continue holding the position and, along with our vote, direct the university to pay the buyout to the departing coach and offer a sufficiently high compensation package to attract a coach who is a proven winner.

Now, if you care to express your opinion to the athletic department and its board along with a $10 million dollar check, I'm much more confident that your voice would carry more weight.

"We" have two options at the present: 1) wait this one out or 2) stop supporting this team and support other athletic or entertainment alternatives.
 

Wet_Blanket_Guy said:
Have you happened to actually read about the roster turnover at Mississippi State and LSU when these coaches took over...and further, you can include Missouri. Let me break it down for you:

Mississippi State: Lost 8 guys from last years team. 59% of the total minutes and 58% of the total scoring. He brought in portal players and HS recruits. They are 17-9 and 41 in KenPom (last year they were 49 in KenPom and 18-16...so how is this a loss in your mind?)

LSU: Matt McMahon: only 3 of the 13 scholarship players returned from the prior LSU season. He brought 3 players from his Murray State NCAA team, 4 HS recruits, and 3 portal players. While they are 12-14: they have a win against Arkansas. *This has started to mirror CBJ in Year 1 though*

Missouri: doesn't count in your mind...it's the coach (so does that mean CBJ is just terrible...?)

Penn State: They are 15-11 and KenPom of 48. This is not a fail. They have been a historically below average program. The only two bad losses they have is 2 against WI & @ Nebraska by 9 (in the Big10). They still may make the NCAA tournament. Last time in the NCAA tournament was 2011.
Click to expand...

You were claiming program "turnarounds" due to transfers. Like many around here, you get too caught up in the moment.

Mississippi State: I didn't say they were worse. I said the current year isn't significantly different from what they experienced under Howland and prior to the significant easing of transfer restrictions. Even by the measure you cite (Kenporn), this year's 17-9 record isn't of much higher quantitative quality than the 18-16 record. So, no "turnaround." One can't look at a single year to determine "turnarounds" anyway.

LSU: so now a losing season and a win against "Arkansas" indicates a "turnaround." He brought in a lot of transfers because he lost a lot of players for various reasons. When that happens, transfers certainly are going to provide the bulk of your productivity. Again, LSU has been a good program for most of this century. So far this guy and his transfers haven't shown that they are improving the program.

And, to answer your question, the evidence to date indicates that our current coach probably does "stink" and saying that LSU's new coach is "mirroring" him in his first year isn't particularly encouraging.

Missouri: you don't think there is a difference between a coach bringing in new players as transfers and transfers that he has coached a significant amount of time in his prior job? That's funny!

Penn State: I didn't say Penn State failed. I said "YOU" failed with your examples to provide so-called "proof" of your original proposition. Like most blowhards, when your original arguments are shot down, you simply change your arguments! Penn State is now around where they have been for some time so no "turnaround."
 

cjbfbp said:
You were claiming program "turnarounds" due to transfers. Like many around here, you get too caught up in the moment.

Mississippi State: I didn't say they were worse. I said the current year isn't significantly different from what they experienced under Howland and prior to the significant easing of transfer restrictions. Even by the measure you cite (Kenporn), this year's 17-9 record isn't of much higher quantitative quality than the 18-16 record. So, no "turnaround." One can't look at a single year to determine "turnarounds" anyway.

LSU: so now a losing season and a win against "Arkansas" indicates a "turnaround." He brought in a lot of transfers because he lost a lot of players for various reasons. When that happens, transfers certainly are going to provide the bulk of your productivity. Again, LSU has been a good program for most of this century. So far this guy and his transfers haven't shown that they are improving the program.

And, to answer your question, the evidence to date indicates that our current coach probably does "stink" and saying that LSU's new coach is "mirroring" him in his first year isn't particularly encouraging.

Missouri: you don't think there is a difference between a coach bringing in new players as transfers and transfers that he has coached a significant amount of time in his prior job? That's funny!

Penn State: I didn't say Penn State failed. I said "YOU" failed with your examples to provide so-called "proof" of your original proposition. Like most blowhards, when your original arguments are shot down, you simply change your arguments! Penn State is now around where they have been for some time so no "turnaround."
Click to expand...
LSU coach didn’t lose the players. The prior coach was fired for being on fbi wire tap. He was fired prior to the NCAA tourney last year, even though they made it.

For Missouri…transfers are transfers

If Penn State makes the NCAA tourney, that’s an improvement. They have a good shot.
 

kix4kix said:
We have to stop being "realistic" and start having a standard. When Fleck got here a lot of people laughed at his antics but he has raised the bar to where we are disappointed with 9 win seasons.

Ben not having an actual BIG caliber pg is unacceptable. Not even in waiting do we have a viable option.

Ben has to make the tournament next year or he has to go, no question. The expectation here should be tournament every year. Doesn't mean it happens, but if you can't make it in 3, you're out. Set the precedent.
Click to expand...
I don’t get where you think we should be a tourney team every year. That has never been the case here.
 




Duker said:
I don’t get where you think we should be a tourney team every year. That has never been the case here.
Click to expand...

Who said every year? If you can’t be at least a borderline NCAA tournament team once in the first 3 years, then we don’t have the right coach.
 

cjbfbp said:
To be fair to Johnson, he was referring to Ihnen as a defensive 3 as I recall which is reasonably plausible (although I thought he was pretty good as a defensive 4). Unless there has been a dramatic improvement in his shooting and ball handling skills, I don't see him at all well suited to handling the offensive duties of that position.
Click to expand...
I agree with that but with our current roster construction (I think we have 35 PFs), he would likely be playing the 3 on offense too.
 

Duker said:
I don’t get where you think we should be a tourney team every year. That has never been the case here.
Click to expand...

Yes, in fact that's only been the case for about a dozen of the 363 or so D1 teams. Some people just don't do the research and so they think it's easy to make the NCAA tournament every year because there are 68 teams in it.
 

Duker said:
I don’t get where you think we should be a tourney team every year. That has never been the case here.
Click to expand...
I think it should be rare that the NCAA tournament is outside the realm of possibility.

We'll have the occasional season where we have no real shot at the tournament. But most seasons we should be a tournament team/bubble team. Our typical "down" year should be an NIT team.
 

cjbfbp said:
Yes, in fact that's only been the case for about a dozen of the 363 or so D1 teams. Some people just don't do the research and so they think it's easy to make the NCAA tournament every year because there are 68 teams in it.
Click to expand...
Half the time should be the standard. If you are in a power 6 conference pretty near half of those teams get in each year. So to be average you have to get in about half the time. Average would be a nice start.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I agree with that but with our current roster construction (I think we have 35 PFs), he would likely be playing the 3 on offense too.
Click to expand...

I suspect there is a fair chance that we don't have quite so many frontline players by the time next season rolls around but, yeah, his skill set really would have to have changed for that to seem workable.

I guess if your personnel is good enough you can do well with a one true guard/4 forward lineup. North Carolina won a national championship in 2017 with essentially that type of lineup and Houston reached the championship in 83 with that kind of lineup. Unfortunately, we're missing their caliber of players.
 

bga1 said:
Half the time should be the standard. If you are in a power 6 conference pretty near half of those teams get in each year. So to be average you have to get in about half the time. Average would be a nice start.
Click to expand...

I would agree with half of the time and maybe even a little higher. But, if one goes through the tournaments for about a 10 year period, you would find relatively few teams that would have made it 80% of the time or more. I did that about a dozen years ago and found only something like 11 teams that met that threshold for a 10 year period.
 

cjbfbp said:
I suspect there is a fair chance that we don't have quite so many frontline players by the time next season rolls around but, yeah, his skill set really would have to have changed for that to seem workable.

I guess if your personnel is good enough you can do well with a one true guard/4 forward lineup. North Carolina won a national championship in 2017 with essentially that type of lineup and Houston reached the championship in 83 with that kind of lineup. Unfortunately, we're missing their caliber of players.
Click to expand...
IMO, it's not just caliber but also "type".

The 2017 UNC team had great wings. Justin Jackson, Theo Pinson, and Kenny Williams all played over 20 minutes per game (with Joel Berry at PG).
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
IMO, it's not just caliber but also "type".
Click to expand...

Well, yes, but really good players are capable of imitating various "types" pretty well. Nikola Jokic is 6'11" and 284 lbs. but he's shooting .391 from 3, 82% from the free throw line, and averages 10.1 assist per game this season.
 


cjbfbp said:
Well, yes, but really good players are capable of imitating various "types" pretty well. Nikola Jokic is 6'11" and 284 lbs. but he's shooting .391 from 3, 82% from the free throw line, and averages 10.1 assist per game this season.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, 100%. A 6'8" guy who can shoot is rare, a 6'8" guy who can shoot, handle the ball, the can play the wing is especially rare. It's absolutely vital that our coach can differentiate between those two hypothetical players.
 

cjbfbp said:
What do you mean by "we" have to have standards? This isn't a democracy where "we" get to vote to fire a coach when "we" feel he no longer deserves to continue holding the position and, along with our vote, direct the university to pay the buyout to the departing coach and offer a sufficiently high compensation package to attract a coach who is a proven winner.

Now, if you care to express your opinion to the athletic department and its board along with a $10 million dollar check, I'm much more confident that your voice would carry more weight.

"We" have two options at the present: 1) wait this one out or 2) stop supporting this team and support other athletic or entertainment alternatives.
Click to expand...
Lol what?
 

kix4kix said:
Lol what?
Click to expand...

The post means that your rant was pointless and suggesting that "standards" exist independent of environmental circumstances is absurd. But, if pointless and absurd rants are your thing, carry on.
 

There has been a lot of discussion about roster construction, so this is how next year's roster currently looks and the positions I believe the players are best suited for, and not necessarily where they have been playing, or where Ben may have them playing in the future.

1 - Cooper
2 - Carrington
2/3 - Christie
3 - Henley
3 - Betts
4 - Battle
4 - Garcia
4 - Ola-Joseph
4 - Ihnen
4 - Fox
4 - Thompson
5 - Payne
5 - Evans

2/3 of the roster is 4's and 5's and we wonder why we're slow, can't shoot, and can't make free throws.

This is why it's hard to be optimistic unless Ihnen, Fox, and Thompson all leave, and they bring in at least two more 1s, and another 2/3 to replace them.
 


cjbfbp said:
I think there is a fair chance that at least two of those three leave.
Click to expand...
I'd guess that depends on what Battle and Garcia do as well. I think Thompson and one of the 4 from this group: Fox, Ihnen, Battle, Garcia..leave
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom