dutchcountry7

This is part of the reason there has been talk about merging Akron and Kent. They both need money so badly. But it isn't likely to happen because they both want to be the identity that remains after the merger. The shame is that this sets them up for failure. It takes their confidence and bangs up their roster before they get into the MAC. Honestly, they would probably be better off not scheduling a FCS and just taking an extra buy week. That would give them a much better shot in the MAC. But since bowl eligibility is based on total record it would make it hard for them to get a bowl invite. Tough road...

They hire a lot of UB grads. https://www.archres.com/team/

And they decided not to add teams weaker than the median. Other conferences added teams for their TV markets that weren't as strong on the field. The Big 12 didn't do that. It is harder to get to .500 for Kansas in the Big 12 than it would be in every other conference.

The problem with Kansas is that they are required to play 9 games every year in the Big 12. This means fewer OOC games that can be scheduled to get some wins, confidence, and momentum. And unlike the Pac12, SEC, ACC, and Big Ten the Big 12 didn't expand and water their conference down. The Big 12 conference having a full-round robin means that the worst team in the conference (Kansas) has to play every contender for the conference championship every year. The full round robin with a smaller conference actually means that Kansas has a tougher schedule than the bottom teams in the other P5 conferences. Kansas needs a lot of work and they can't get momentum with the schedule they face. They are locked in to a tough spot. #64 Texas Tech was the worst Big 12 team this year (not counting Kansas since they can't play themselves). So Kansas could only play three games against teams #65 or worse. Top-65 teams are pretty solid teams that are capable of knocking off a top-20 team--these are teams that are expecting to get into bowl games. Comparison of conferences for (Sagarin Ratings) in order of fewest sub-65 game opportunities for the last place divisional team based on current team performances: Big 12 - Kansas (3 Maximum) - 3 OOC games. SEC East - Vanderbilt (4 maximum) - 4 OOC games ACC Coastal - Duke (4 minimum) - 3 OOC games plus #96 GA Tech plus potential cross over games SEC West - Arkansas (4 minimum) - 4 OOC games plus potential cross over games ACC Atlantic - Syracuse (5 minimum) - 3 OOC games plus #66 Boston College and #92 Florida State plus potential cross over games Big Ten East - Rutgers (5 minimum) 3 OOC games plus #85 Maryland and #89 Michigan State plus potential cross over games Big Ten West - Illinois (5 minimum) - 3 OOC games plus #67 Nebraska and #76 Purdue plus potential cross over games So each of those other conference bottom teams has more opportunities to play sub-65 games which can be used to get some wins under their belt and help with recruiting and fan engagement. Kansas has the hardest path in that all while playing in a conference with some of the top teams in the country that contend for the playoff.

I find it hard to believe that the Mountain West has three teams in the last four. Seems to be someone trying to get as many MWC teams inside the bubble.

I did not expand the preview or see any highlighting. You're right, I never saw you take that position and there are others that I have not seen take that position that I have likely engaged with. My whole purpose of engaging was due to the absurdity of the claims calling for a change in leadership at this time. That has spawned other conversations that people may take differing positions on and may have prompted responses. While I figured anyone wading through this dredge of a discussion must have an opinion on the main topic of the thread which is the status of the head coach and that their opposition to my posts was based on their opposition to the position I took on the topic. Though, as you pointed out, that isn't necessarily true.

You didn't say computer metrics are meaningless? I guess you value the production of the metrics but not their inputs. Forgive me, I thought that's what you said. when you said "All of these statistics going into all the computers are meaningless." When you said "computers don't play games", I thought you were saying computer metrics are insignificant in college basketball. And while it is true the computers don't push the ball around, the computers to in-fact assign teams to be played (NCAA, NIT, MTEs, OOC) so they determine if you are considered a successful team or not. They determine if you're able to get exposure for your program. Computers have a big impact on the game. And they do tell the level a program is judged by the basketball community. Though it should be noted that the basketball community is different than fans.

"Luck" is the name given to a quantifiable metric. You don't understand what the "Luck" rating means. I get you don't like any authority that conflicts with your convictions you developed while sipping a beer and shouting at the TV in an emotional loss but the only way you can fight biases is to try to use models that you're not able to manipulate. In case you didn't know this. I am not Ken Pomeroy and he does not care one way or the other if Buffalo looks good or bad in the data he produces.

Based on some of your comment history on here, I believe you should know better than that. For starters our invitations to tournaments like Charleston Classic were the result of the computer metrics not the wins and losses. Davidson is regularly higher in the computer rankings than their results and that is why they get invited to events like Maui. Yes, if UB is getting killed in the MAC it matters. But games are fickle and there is a small sample size for games. So you can't make a knee jerk reaction based on a small sample size. You need indicators to tell you something more. And that comes from impartial metrics. If you care about getting UB to the next tier, then you should be caring about the metrics. If you care about seeing the team make progress through this season, then you should not be calling for firings mid-season. There is a time and a place for it and that would be after the season. Of course, I would disagree with it based on the body of evidence. But I wouldn't find it out of line to have voices heard since it is inbetweener seasons and doesn't impact the team directly the way it does now.)

My ulterior motive is not calling for a coach to be fired in the middle of the season unless there is a serious issue (not athletic performance related). I am also not a fan of calling for firing at the end of a coach's second year (especially with a buyout) unless the program is in free-fall. Your behavior is not acceptable. It is sophomoric. And it is indicative of someone who hasn't been in a position to make such decisions. It is the worst of the Monday Morning Quarterbacking. If the only number that mattered was in the win column then Creighton wouldn't have accepted an invitation to the Big East and we wouldn't be wanting an invitation to the American. Of course, wins aren't all that matter. You can get wins by playing teams no one cares about. But I am sure you'd be changing your tune if JW started scheduling more non-D1 games or low level D1 games. You'd talk about how those wins don't matter and how he needs to go. Broken record.

That makes sense. One of the criticisms was that JW team was playing more to opponents levels compared to those of NO. Your data seems to support that. It could be partly due to the difference in styles. A faster paced offense will lead to larger margins than a slowed down offense. The data this year is too limited for me to put stock into it. But I do appreciate your data. Though, wouldn't everyone here expect a drop off in performance between NO and JW? Or do people believe that UB was going to hire another coach that will be poached for $4MM a year in a few years at Buffalo?

You don't understand the Luck metric. The luck metric is not added to the equation. It is the deviation from the record of the team and their play on the court. If you understood the metric you'd actually be able to make the claim that the team's record underperforms their play because the coach needs to go. Because that's your basic premise. At least then you'd have some data to back up your premise. Even though unlucky teams often see a leap forward since their play on the court eventually will start matching results. But instead, since you don't understand the metric and rather than just ignoring it or trying to learn about it you make up something that you think it must mean. This is the problem. You're a bull in a china shop just running around with your agenda and now willing to have a real discussion. You've made up your mind based on emotions as a fan while watching the game. If you don't understand the "Luck" metric just stop talking about it. You're embarrassing yourself.

I would expect a decline this year either way because we aren't happy with the results which is why we are having this conversation. But I suspect the margin of error is smaller now with a better MAC. And our expectations are higher today than they were in the past. As you know, a small sample size so we can't put too much stock into trend lines but it is interesting to see nonetheless.

I appreciate an objective look and this is interesting. Isn't the MAC much stronger now today than it was in Oats' early years? Or is it about the same? I was thinking the conference is stronger nationally today than when he took over so the opponents are better today.

Which is why it is a vision. UB is not a B1G school "right NOW" as you say... but the vision is to get to that point some day. I don't get the people who say "no one will ever, ever tell me that UB isn't a B1G school" and then turn around and say that UB isn't a Big Ten school in the next sentence... Are we not talking about the realities of today? Tell a recruit that UB is a B1G school and they will laugh at you. Because being a B1G school simply means you're a member that competes in conference competition within the Big Ten Conference. It isn't about being a public flagship (Northwestern), or being in the AAU (Nebraska), or being in the Great Lakes Region (Maryland). It is about being in the conference. This is a problem where people drink the cool-aid and then lose other people and are unable to sell them on it. You can talk about the greatness of UB and why it is well positioned for the future without making absurd claims about it being a B1G school. If you're going to try to draw parallels at least qualify it by saying that UB is very similar to many of the B1G schools. You people you're trying to convince aren't UB fans. You're trying to make the sale to people who are not already sold on UB. So don't talk in delusional terms that will turn them off.

The legislature fights over the schools. The schools are an economic driver for many of the communities they are located in and so everyone fights to invest more in their school which results in no schools being able to grow more than the others and there being no willingness to make any flagship. SUNY-Albany, for instance, took a hit with the creation of SUNY-Poly in 2004 which pulled the School of Nanotechnology out of SUNY-Albany and placed it within the school based in Utica. It strengthen the Utica based school while leaving the research in the Albany area but not affiliated with SUNY-Albany. This was done to help Utica become more of an established school with a stronger brand to help them grow but was at the expense of UAlbany which lost a great college from their University. Which hurt UAlbany from being viewed as more of a flagship and they don't get credit for the research performed anymore. This is just an example of the things that go on within SUNY and the politics behind it.

The metrics are based on the team's performance on the floor and who they are playing against and not about the result of a game. So yes, playing well against good teams and losing and just barely losing to bad teams will give a team a higher rating than a team that simply losses to those same teams by comfortable margins. Buffalo's Luck rating by KenPom is #345 with the higher number (worse rating) meaning that the team is unlucky. This would be consistent with the gripes people have about closing out games. But often unlucky teams end up having big wins and going on big runs late in the season or in the next season in part because they are much better than their record and people look past them.

Another win. All wins are good wins.

Why do we care about the performance of our college basketball team? Why do we care how the program has performed in a thread where people are calling for a drastic change and a coach to be fired? Seriously, it is pretty clear you have an agenda here and like to push disinformation. Yes, I love impartial third parties taking an objected look at things so that I can minimize my own biases. You clearly not only prefer your biases but believe that you have all the answers. It's behavior like yours that makes fan bases unbearable.

We can see in the video the game was standing room only. We can see in the video the place was packed as time expired (and well after the game ended). Stony Brook said it was a sell out. https://stonybrookathletics.com/news/2016/3/12/Seawolves_punch_ticket_to_NCAA_tournament_with_80_74_win_over_Vermont.aspx What is your deal? You have a real issue and are pushing disinformation here. People can watch the video and clearly see that you're wrong.

Okay, so this line struck me since I thought I must have been misremember if what you said were true. But nope... Stony Brook was #217 the next season (2017) and #223 the season after that (2018). The team plummeted in a rebuild. As is often the case when a coach is hired away. We didn't have that because Whitesell brought stability to the program. Stony Brook hasn't been good. They have been bad with a few good years. And on those rare occasions when they have been good, the fans have turned out.

Wow, I hadn't realize the team was swept by Bowling Green for the first time in 10 years. You're right. Comparing the performance against (#125) Bowling Green this year and (#249) Bowling Green in 2017 is a great metric. Teams are always at the same level every year. We are not "teetering on the brink" if the team misses the NCAA tournament. Seriously, get of the ledge. There are over 280 non P5+BE schools in D1. As they currently stand the team is in the top-50 of those. That is with all the doom and gloom people are talking about here. This is that list of top-50 CURRENT mid-majors. 1 Gonzaga WCC 2 Houston Amer 3 Loyola Chicago MVC 4 Saint Louis A10 5 San Diego St. MWC 6 Utah St. MWC 7 Richmond A10 8 BYU WCC 9 Boise St. MWC 10 St. Bonaventure A10 11 SMU Amer 12 Drake MVC 13 Davidson A10 14 Rhode Island A10 15 VCU A10 16 Toledo MAC 17 Wichita St. Amer 18 Memphis Amer 19 Dayton A10 20 Cincinnati Amer 21 San Francisco WCC 22 Saint Mary's WCC 23 Furman SC 24 Colorado St. MWC 25 Wright St. Horz 26 Marshall CUSA 27 Tulsa Amer 28 Western Kentucky CUSA 29 North Texas CUSA 30 UAB CUSA 31 UCF Amer 32 South Dakota St. Sum 33 Belmont OVC 34 South Florida Amer 35 Liberty ASun 36 Yale Ivy 37 Vermont AE 38 Massachusetts A10 39 Winthrop BSth 40 Colgate Pat 41 Georgia St. SB 42 Louisiana Tech CUSA 43 Nevada MWC 44 Buffalo MAC 45 Duquesne A10 46 Kent St. MAC 47 UC Santa Barbara BW 48 Pacific WCC 49 Bradley MVC 50 New Mexico St. WAC Seriously, your dooms day scenario where the sky is falling and drastic measures need to be taken is being on par with the likes of New Mexico State, Nevada, and Georgia State? Programs will have fluctuations. And the program is still performing at a respectable level. Just not where we want it to be. No sure what your "lost more this year than 35 games" is all about. If you're talking about the last year Oats coached then what's your point? Do you want me to tell you that Oats is a better coach? Okay. Be prepared to be shocked. Oats is a better coach. You want to hire him to come back and replace Whitesell? Be my guest. But if you're talking about going out making a change and brining in a coach that UB can land... then who are you talking about? The problem here is you're just shouting "we need a change!" and yeah, the change needs to be more wins. But that doesn't mean you make a change that includes changing up the whole program. Coaching changes are traumatic for a program. They are major changes. You act like firing a coach is a panacea. But what really happens? You fire a coach and look for a new one with no guarantee you will hire a coach that performs better. You hope that your budget allows you to hire a coach that is on the rise or a proven winner while competing with other programs that are desperate for a change too. You actually have a higher likelihood of taking a step back because you lose the team identify that is created which leads to players transferring. It is far from a guarantee. This is a path many programs have gone down and a lot have found stability and success in years three, four, and five. But if your reaction is to fire the staff and make a change anytime the team isn't performing as you want them to then you will never get the momentum you need to actually build a successful program.

You're telling me that the game I linked to which posted video of the packed out arena as time expired with fans rushing the court was half empty at half time? Is that because people went to the concession stand before they came back to watch the second half of the game? There is literally video I posted that shows you're talking nonsense. But hey, if you want to talk about all the games you go to at SBU, that kind of proves my point. Even UB fans go to SBU games, then it must be a sleep giant. They can even get you to games and your contention is that there is no reason anyone would watch SBU games. You're the hardest critic to win over and they already won you over.

I will run over some points you made... Location. This is a selling point for Stony Brook. They are near their most successful alumni base. Teams from all over the country want to go to the NYC metro area to play games. While playing in Long Island is likely not a big draw right now, it would be acceptable with a better brand. They can draw teams to NYC. They are a logical regional rival for UConn and Rutgers. Being on Long Island is an advantage they have. you speak about being a pro sports town but that is no different than Buffalo. Buffalo has nothing to sell visiting teams on so they won't come to Buffalo for a game. But go to NYC--no matter where the school is from--and they will be playing in front of alumni from that school. NYC is home to alumni from everywhere. Buffalo is not. You speak of support for the program but by SBU's own admission they have only recently started to put work into their athletic programs. They are absolutely further ahead than when we made the jump to FBS. Their facilities, their fundraising, their student, community, and alumni support are ahead of where we were when we made the jump and they have a better path forward. Yes, Buffalo is currently better than SBU. That isn't the question. They could make the jump to FBS though and they would see a boost from it. They have the tools to do it already. That's the point. They are no more or no less a B1G school than Buffalo. A claim that is simply rhetoric since being a B1G school simply means being a member of the Big Ten Conference. Some people around here seem to think Northwestern isn't a B1G school since they aren't a public school. Which is honestly an absurd metric. The only reason people want to emphasize the public feature is because they think it will ensure a built in fan base. You talk about SBU's basketball success and how "your own two eyes" didn't see their fans turn out in their most successful season. That is funny to me because 2016 was their big year. So are you saying that you went to a regular season game in the only year they made the NCAA tournament and didn't see a lot of fans turn out? You realize in 2016 we both made the big dance. They finished the year #98 in KenPom and we finished #138--both of us got in by winning the conference tournament. They averaged 3,400 a game that year while we averaged 3,200 fans a game. This is their support from one of their home games that season. I guess it wasn't the game you "saw with your own two eyes" which is reasonable since not all the games were like that, just as not all our games are well attended. Stony Brook is NOT where Buffalo is today and they would like to become Buffalo as far as athletic accomplishments are concerned. But they are further along than Buffalo was when Buffalo made the leap to FBS. And SBU has more advantages built in that would allow them to succeed if they made the jump. Now back to talking about UB basketball... You're upset about a loss and want to have the Top-25 team back. Who doesn't? But that doesn't mean that we should be talking about a coaching change. First, people here act like it is easy to hire a good coach. Every hire includes significant risk. So you make the move when it is worth it. We have to give the program time. It is easy to be impatient and want a fresh start now but every fresh start is going to include volatility that resets the clock on the program being built. The program is NOT in free fall as some make it out to be. The metrics tell us that the program is stable, even if you're not happy. I get people long for the success of Oats' teams and that is understandable. But he is gone for a reason. He is lightyears better than a coach Buffalo can get. He was a stop on the way up and finding many of those in sequence is hard to do. But even he wasn't immune the loss we are talking about. People seem to forget how his top-25 team lost to (#136) Northern Illinois and (#105) Bowling Green in the greatest season in Buffalo history. But now people want to claim the sky is falling because our team losses to (#114) Kent State? Give the program time. We will have a better picture of the program in a year or two. The program is in good shape. Yes, we all want more out of it. But the program is still one of the strongest mid-major programs in the country and still a top team in the MAC which is the goal to maintain.

Why do you say SBU isn't going FBS? They are as well positioned to be FBS as Buffalo. In fact, I would argue they are better positioned. I would take their stadium any day over UB Stadium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_P._LaValle_Stadium#/media/File:LavalleHomecoming2019.jpg It is a fairly arbitrary line people like to draw. Carve it out so that Rice and Tulane aren't included. Another slice to exclude UC-Irvine or in-state academic rival Stony Brook. Another slice to ensure UMass, Ohio, and Miami are not included. Cut up so that any metric fits the narrative that UB is a Big Ten school just the Big Ten hasn't figured it out yet. The Big Ten is an athletic conference. Buffalo doesn't fit in the athletic conference. I am on board with the sentiment. I believe Buffalo could be a big deal; much bigger than it is. And I already believe it is a pretty big deal. But there is a lot of potential there. First we have to have an honest assessment of what it is. The gimmicks to try to accelerate it by using PR campaigns to convince people it is further along doesn't work. The strategies that are used are the same ones that every other G5 (or FCS looking to become FBS) is employing. And that is exactly why it won't work and hasn't worked.