dutchcountry7

The only thing you listed that I felt was bad was the MAC tournament loss at home last year. But we are talking about a small sample size. One game doesn't make or break a coaching hire. I was on one of the people who was expecting big things out of the gate last year. People hyped themselves up with unrealistic expectations for the opening of the season. Losing to Dartmouth didn't surprise me. The team was decimated with the departure of the staff and the way they instructed players to decommit. They brought in some good new additions that took time to learn the system and play together. It didn't matter who coached them, the team would have needed time to come together. Maybe the staff should have done what Oats did for his first ever game coaching Buffalo when he brought in Pitt-Bradford to beat up on because he didn't think the team was ready to open with a D1 game. I believe the computer metrics tell us more than we can tell by being consumed as fans and wanting to win every game. The team is better than you'd think they are. I think the team is in a good place because of these metrics. Two metrics I consider to be quality metrics (which are consulted by the selection committee because they value them too) are Sagarin and KenPom. Sagarin has Buffalo #96 and KenPom has Buffalo #111. We need to look at this with some perspective. Over the last 10 years the MAC has averaged one team in the final top-100 every year. And the conference has had times where no team has been in the top-100. Being top-150 in the country puts you in reach to win the MAC. Staying top-150 puts the program in the upper 40% of teams. You stay above that and you're in good shape. (Falling below it doesn't necessarily call for firing but it is a metric that warrants concern and investigation if it isn't met.) Being top-100 is the goal. There are nearly 100 Power conference basketball teams with the P5 and Big East. you add in the A10 teams like Dayton, VCU, Rhode Island, Saint Louis along with other perennially strong teams like Gonzaga, St Mary's, San Diego State, BYU, etc and you get over 100 really quickly. Being in the top-100 is where the program wants to be. From there you can get big wins. The program was in position to beat Syracuse this year and if a normal year with a normal schedule and practice schedule likely would have a nice win--just like when they beat DePaul last year. The team on the floor right now is better than the first one Oats took to the NCAA tournament. They finished the year #138 in KenPom. The program is in good shape. It has stability which is important. It has players that are buying in to the program. That is what is needed. The results are disappointing because of the high expectations we have. That's fine. That can be good. But some perspective is needed. There is no reason to warrant talk of a change. The program is in good shape. Give it time and see how it plays out.

Yeah, Presidents love to sell a grand vision for a school to raise money. I assume he would have said the same thing if he were at UMass or New Mexico. He would still be right. Though it wouldn't be any less a grand vision not based in current realities. That is the ambition and rightly so. So there is a long ways to go. Buffalo has to win over WNY first and needs to expand the reach throughout the state. There is a lot of work to do before there can be any claim to flagship status--especially with SUNY actively opposing any distinction of a System flagship.

That bold point is not correct at all. Only FBS school but we aren't even the only public AAU in the state not in the P5. There are a good number of public D1 schools not in P5 conferences. The second point also doesn't include the fact that Buffalo also has some of the most travel in the conference. The spending is there in operational costs but isn't exactly a luxury. And the spending isn't anywhere near a P5 level.

Skimmed the posts here after being busy... like others I was down about the result of the Kent State game. But these results are not crazy. UB is currently 111th in KenPom. That is Whitesell's second year at the helm. What was Oats' team at the end of his second year? 122th in KenPom. Oats' team was lower performing in his second year than Whitesell's second year. No one is going to make the claim that Whitesell is as good of a coach as someone making millions a year. We all know that if a coach is good they won't be at Buffalo for anything other than building their resume on to better things. But it is crazy to make the claims that the program isn't in good shape.

This is a joke right? Is Stony Brook a B1G school playing in the AEC? Is UMass a B1G school playing in the A10? Is Texas State a B1G (or B12) school playing in the Sun Belt? I could go on... What metrics could you possibly be using that don't apply to other schools which you think makes UB a B1G school? Seriously, Miami and Ohio are no different than UB. I get thinking the most of our school and program but you're delusional.

Yeah, I think comparison of conferences is hard. There aren't really any like the MAC is actually more like the Big Ten, ACC, Big 12, Big East, and Pac 12 in how much parity there is in the conference. Probably even more parity when you look at the actual ratings. But no one actually judges a conference by the breadth of the teams within the conference. It is all about how good the teams are at the top and how many good teams there are in the conference. The MAC doesn't get the respect it should as a mid-major. It is a tough conference to win the tournament because there is always like six teams that could pull out the wins to win it all. But it isn't a conference that people are going to care about because it rarely ever has a game against two top-100 teams.

I want to add to what I said here... I really think the chart you made misses the mark. The spread between the top and the bottom of the conference isn't important. Nor is having one really good team in the conference. What really matters is the number of top-100 teams in the conference. You build a resume with top-100 wins. Those are the ones that the committee notices. Of course, top-75 is even better but top-100 are the games that get noticed.

Yes, the MAC is full of middle of the road teams and it makes for competitive games. It also means no one pays any attention to the conference because there are no teams worth looking at nationally. That's why it was such a big deal when we were a top-20 program. Look at that chart and you see there isn't even a single top-100 team. That means no one is even in the running for making the NIT let alone the NCAA tournament. It is kind of the worse of both worlds. Top teams aren't good enough to get national attention and the middle of the road (and even bottom teams) are more than good enough to knock off the teams at the top of the conference.

Syracuse is never playing in Alumni. You completely misunderstand how these games work. The game location isn't about ticket sales (though Syracuse makes significantly more from those than UB does). It is about media. The home team owns the media rights and the ACC's media deal is worth a ton more money than the MAC's deal. Furthermore, Boeheim doesn't like to have his team travel. He knows that you're more likely to lose when you travel. It upsets the routine. They rarely travel for any place other than NYC and that is only because they have such a large alumni base there with some major donors.

When you cut a check to UB Athletics to give the money to bring in another D1 team it will happen. Until that happens, we will have one non-D1 on the schedule every year. At least this is a much better team than Nazareth or Pitt-Bradford. Gannon will be as good as some D1 schools.

December 29 vs West Virginia in Morgantown. https://wvusports.com/sports/mens-basketball/schedule/2020-21

Oh, okay. That's more in keeping with what I was thinking. Losing three starters is big, especially when Lamb is gone. He could take over games and just dominate. The possession numbers are probably skewed because Lamb would get double teamed so often which would open up other players and inflate their numbers.

Ah, okay, I guess UVM didn't lose as much to graduation as I thought.

They have not said yet but the spring sport model might end up applying. That would mean that current seniors who return won't count against next year's scholarship limit. But if the senior goes to another school, they will count against the new school's limit. Which would mean programs with a lot of seniors might be the teams that benefit the most.

Yup. The MAC is about to become a developmental league for the Big Ten. The Big Ten will recruit high school players that can play right away. No more will they recruit any three stars with potential. They will recruit four and five stars only. And then poach three stars from the MAC after they show they can play.

That's a nice one. I think Vermont is rebuilding, right? But Iona might be good with the Slimeball of a coach they now have.

I don't think UB lands recruits because of academics. The other two conferences I mentioned absolutely land recruits because of the academics.

This is true but it is also true about everyone else. Every other school will be getting the benefit of their players coming back.

Yeah but what do the Ivy and Patriot Leagues have to do with UB basketball?

SUNY won't allow paying players. We had to fight for years to get permission to give scholarships.

(1) You're assuming we get him again. The whole game changes. It is just as likely he ends up at UMass, Rhode Island, or some other school now. Some schools passed on him because they didn't have a scholarship open. Other schools passed on him because they thought he would have to sit a year and didn't want to burn a scholarship for a year. We were fine with spending a scholarship on him to sit the bench because he was better than what we could expect to recruit. So it was an investment. When his waiver came through it was even better. But if there is no waiver, then other schools will be interested in him. (2) Why would Graves stay at Buffalo? There would literally be 200 schools willing to offer him a spot to play. And many of those would have better facilities, better player development, better TV deals, larger crowds. These players don't dream of playing in the MAC. The program will be completely changed. It won't be about developing players and building a cohesive team. It will be about recruiting players (mainly through transfers). Expect to start each season without knowing many of the players on the roster and not having a clue how they all fit together. This doesn't benefit programs like UB and I expect it to hurt the MAC overall too.

No, it won't help. Sure, the players from major conferences that sit the bench will transfer to the MAC. But the star players in the MAC will bolt for better conferences. Why wouldn't you? There is literally no reason not to anymore. Would you rather retain your players that could actually play in the Big Ten or would you rather pick up more players that couldn't play in the Big Ten? That's really the question.

I hate the aesthetics of MAC players transferring up to better opportunities that results with them landing at st bona but I guess there is not much we can do about that. The MAC just doesn't have the reputation we need from a conference. I like to think he would have considered transferring to UB if not for the same conference issue.

I wouldn't be surprised at Army. We have played them before. They are a safe bet as they have the campus locked down and they would be a good game to get acclimated to play with.

Interesting. That would be a big one. And I have to assume there will be no fans. Wonder if they will still play at the dome? That would be eerily quiet without fans.