2021-22 Offseason discussion

[gt24]

We're trading experience in Jose and Moses for talent (Quantity of not quality of) in Coleman, Kelly, Moore, Smith, and effectively Meka/Maxwell.

this is a key component of why believe we need a crazy easy OOC schedule in nov/dec. if i'm the coach building the schedule, i take uga and the ACC/BIG opponent as the only 2 P6 opponents. everything else is LM or MM. and any MM would be a (projected) weak MM. pile up the wins. give yourself (as coach) freedom to experiment with different lineups for 2 months before ACC play. dont box yourself in with decision making on lineups in december because you have a P6 opponent every week.

i know the NCAAT committee says they frown on weak OOC, but that only applies for teams on the bubble. ACC might be stronger next year, but not significantly stronger, not scary strong. which means, to me, that compiling a solid/respectable/tourney-worthy ACC record is reasonably possible. that, combined with a stellar OOC record, and a roster and rotations that are better vetted for ACC play, is the best strategy imho.

regarding the counter-argument that a weak OOC schedule will not "prepare" us for ACC-level comp... i think it's the opposite. a tougher OOC schedule will limit Pastner and force him to play to win that night rather than experiment with young/new guys in different lineups/rotations to find the best combinations in advance of ACC play. some young/new guys can struggle for a few weeks or even the first half of the season despite the fact that they are on the brink/cusp of being the best option for the second half of the season. as an example: Ush's dad has even referenced this on this board... some new guys (transfers or frosh) just need some time to assimilate - practice time AND game time. but that shouldnt necessarily mean "you are struggling in november and we have P6 opponents each week in december, so you gotta sit and wait another 11 months to try again because our upcoming schedule is so tough."

i'm not suggesting this approach every year. but next year with the transition lv20gt describes i'd go weak OOC and treat nov/dec as a long process of lineup/rotations experimenting without fear of jeopardizing NCAAT chances before ACC play even begins. give yourself (as head coach) and the team (with several talented new pieces) the freedom to develop slowly.

 

[lv20gt]

this is a key component of why believe we need a crazy easy OOC schedule in nov/dec. if i'm the coach building the schedule, i take uga and the ACC/BIG opponent as the only 2 P6 opponents. everything else is LM or MM. and any MM would be a (projected) weak MM. pile up the wins. give yourself (as coach) freedom to experiment with different lineups for 2 months before ACC play. dont box yourself in with decision making on lineups in december because you have a P6 opponent every week.

I disagree.

We don't need to go crazy scheduling but there is no reason to do that. You do that when you expect to have an extremely young team, especially one that you expect to struggle in conference play, both to get them experience and game time in winnable games but also just to pad the resume and make it look not as bad.

While we are trading experience for talent, one of the factors that helps us in that trade is that we will still, likely, be a very experienced team. Devoe, Usher, Parham, K. Moore all have a lot of experience and both Sturdivant and Smith have a good amount as well. We have a lot of experience expected back next year and while we are adding a good amount of young players, we won't be relying on the, The benefit is that of the 6 players I mentioned, we can pick and choose who is ready and play them, rather than being forced to play them and develop them on the fly. If Kelly isn't fully ready to contribute next year, we have the pieces to allow him a year to develop with a minor game day role.

IMO realistically, our line up will look something like the following. Just a rough breakdown to give an idea.

PG - Sturdivant - Smith
SG - Devoe - Parham
SF - Coleman - Moore
PF - Ush - Meka
C - Howard - Gigi.

The only new face in that starting 5 is Coleman and even then we have Moore as a senior as another option there. While we are bringing in a lot of new faces we won't be forced to rely on any one of them in particular. It may take a minute for Smith to build chemistry, but we have Kyle and Bubba as well. It may take a month or two for Coleman to adjust to college life but we have Moore, and the option of going 3 guards with Bubba as well. Meka isn't likely going to be leaned on either.

I don't think we should go crazy with the OOC by any means, but nor should we just dip any challenge at all. We have plenty of returning experience, and don't necessarily need to rely on any specific new face so we don't have to schedule to make sure that one particular player is ready. We basically need one of Coleman, Maxwell, Kelly, or Smith to step up. And likely as not practice and preseason will narrow that down to 2 and who plays how much can be worked out with a normal OOC.

 

[MtnWasp]

The issue boils down to whether the balance sheet favors a higher probability of a good loss versus a lower probability of a bad loss.

If you project your team will be better later in the season than early, then if you schedule a light schedule out of the gate, then you could still be facing an early season loss, even to a low major program. Those are difficult to overcome, even with a late season surge.

So, another way to go at the problem is to schedule a tough out of conference schedule so that, if the young team is going to lose some early games, that they are good losses.

Load-up the schedule, trial by fire and let the kids figure it out.

 

[RamblinRed]

If all you schedule is patsies you will not get an NCAA bid even if you win all the games. NC ST found that out a couple of years ago.
You is not likely to be seen as a tough game and given past matchups the ACC/B10 game is unlikely to either. GT will need to schedule at least 2 other matchups against better teams to have any shot of their OOC being a positive.

A poor OOC ranking is an anchor and all those tier 3 and 4 wins amount to nothing.
Selection Committees hate to see that. You don't schedule easy, you schedule smart. Not every game has to be a killer, but you really want no more than around 3-4 easy buy games at most. You also want at least 3-4 games against Top 100 type teams.

 

[gt24]

I disagree.

We don't need to go crazy scheduling but there is no reason to do that. You do that when you expect to have an extremely young team, especially one that you expect to struggle in conference play, both to get them experience and game time in winnable games but also just to pad the resume and make it look not as bad.

While we are trading experience for talent, one of the factors that helps us in that trade is that we will still, likely, be a very experienced team. Devoe, Usher, Parham, K. Moore all have a lot of experience and both Sturdivant and Smith have a good amount as well. We have a lot of experience expected back next year and while we are adding a good amount of young players, we won't be relying on the, The benefit is that of the 6 players I mentioned, we can pick and choose who is ready and play them, rather than being forced to play them and develop them on the fly. If Kelly isn't fully ready to contribute next year, we have the pieces to allow him a year to develop with a minor game day role.

IMO realistically, our line up will look something like the following. Just a rough breakdown to give an idea.

PG - Sturdivant - Smith
SG - Devoe - Parham
SF - Coleman - Moore
PF - Ush - Meka
C - Howard - Gigi.

The only new face in that starting 5 is Coleman and even then we have Moore as a senior as another option there. While we are bringing in a lot of new faces we won't be forced to rely on any one of them in particular. It may take a minute for Smith to build chemistry, but we have Kyle and Bubba as well. It may take a month or two for Coleman to adjust to college life but we have Moore, and the option of going 3 guards with Bubba as well. Meka isn't likely going to be leaned on either.

I don't think we should go crazy with the OOC by any means, but nor should we just dip any challenge at all. We have plenty of returning experience, and don't necessarily need to rely on any specific new face so we don't have to schedule to make sure that one particular player is ready. We basically need one of Coleman, Maxwell, Kelly, or Smith to step up. And likely as not practice and preseason will narrow that down to 2 and who plays how much can be worked out with a normal OOC.

This post is 100% logical and reasonable. I agree that we have plenty of experience coming back. If it were just a matter of integrating Coleman, I'd agree with you entirely. Yet my view is that there are many more lineup/rotation questions to be answered in Nov/Dec than one would expect with so much experience returning. First, lineup/rotation decisions exist at each "position" (to the extent that those still exist) as demonstrated by your list. Even more challenging than that is the "position" flexibility of so many of these guys. (Great "challenge" to have.)

My inclination to schedule easy OOC isn't so much a fear of not being able to compete with P6 or MM, it is a desire to avoid getting stuck or boxed in with a 7/8-man rotation too early in the season with so many great pieces on the roster. I may be over-stating or inflating that concern, but seems to me Pastner is very conservative with lineup/rotation experimentation by nature, so an easy OOC schedule could give him more freedom.

I'm not one of those clamoring for an unrealistic 10/11-man rotation. I'm mostly a believer in 8-man (or 8.5) rotations once things get settled. But with the talent and flexible pieces on the roster, I'd want more room to experiment throughout Nov/Dec games.

 

[YlJacket]

I understand your concern - and agree that some of the returning pieces are less experienced/predictable than one might like. But most teams have at least a couple of guys who have to step up well beyond what they did the prior year and/or a talented frosh they have to incorporate. We are not going to be unique in that regard. The biggest con to an all cupcake OOC that I think is what you are suggesting is that it does put a big damper on getting an otherwise talented bubble type team into the dance. Red pointed out the recent NC State scheduling issue that kept them out of the tourney but there have been others. So the way I look at the idea is we may have more ability to play with rotations in the OOC but to what end? It likely would make the NCAAs a tough nut to get to and that is not what I would like to see.

Without Moses or Jose we still should have talent to be a middle of the pack ACC bubble team. But part of this requires CJP to use the summer and pre season to get that talent in place to be able to execute in a legit (not overscheduled) OOC schedule leading into the ACC. While I too am still haunted by the 2 debacles early last year, it is still his job to be able to put those types of games in his back pocket (generally speaking). I would be OK with starting with a couple of directional sisters of the poor school but IMHO they need to throw in one of the preseason tourneys that allow the team to see where they stand and then sprinkle in a mix of mid tier bubble enhancing teams. As long as the tourney is the goal.

 

[orientalnc]

It's a moot point at this time because we got the automatic bid this past season, but I wonder if we would have been included otherwise. Our OOC schedule was pretty weak and we lost two of those games to opponents well below us in the rankings.

Scheduling is a balancing act and very different from deciding which ice cream flavor you want. Having a few buy games is good, but P6 and MM opponents are trying to do the same thing with their schedules, so teams need mutual interest. Or at least a real need to fill a particular spot in the calendar. Ga State wants to play us because it helps their recruiting, but Auburn and Tennessee don't see us the same way. Especially if they think we might win the game. When a MM team rolls into Atlanta they are pumped to play and potentially beat an ACC opponent. Those are dangerous games.

At the same time, winning 20+ games and ten are against opponents ranked in the 200s doesn't get you into the tournament.

 

[gt24]

But part of this requires CJP to use the summer and pre season to get that talent in place to be able to execute in a legit (not overscheduled) OOC schedule leading into the ACC.

this would be the ideal year for an overseas trip in august. (obviously not gonna happen with COVID.)

 

[New Old Guy]

this would be the ideal year for an overseas trip in august. (obviously not gonna happen with COVID.)

Team went to Spain summer 2019 (seems like ages ago now). Only allowed one overseas trip every three years. So we cannot go even if COVID wasn’t an issue.

Its a good thought, though.

 

[slugboy]

Team went to Spain summer 2019 (seems like ages ago now). Only allowed one overseas trip every three years. So we cannot go even if COVID wasn’t an issue.

Its a good thought, though.

Hmm. Do the Bahamas or other nearby locations count as “overseas”?

 

[dtm1997]

Hmm. Do the Bahamas or other nearby locations count as “overseas”?

Yep. Even Canada counts for on of those trips.

 

[orientalnc]

Yep. Even Canada counts for on of those trips.

The Atlantis games are definitely overseas. Having made that trip from Miami to Nassau in a 36' sailboat, it is, without any doubt, overseas.

 

[lv20gt]

My inclination to schedule easy OOC isn't so much a fear of not being able to compete with P6 or MM, it is a desire to avoid getting stuck or boxed in with a 7/8-man rotation too early in the season with so many great pieces on the roster. I may be over-stating or inflating that concern, but seems to me Pastner is very conservative with lineup/rotation experimentation by nature, so an easy OOC schedule could give him more freedom.

IMO it's less that your overstating the concern but more that you seem to be putting too much into games against weak opponents. IMO the roster issues will largely be determined based on practices, not games. Obviously the specific minutes split will be based on games but I don't think overly easy games provide great insight into that type of distinction.

IMO 4 of our spots are pretty much locked* (I'll explain what I mean by that in a second). IMO only the 3 position is really up in the air for experimenting. We could go Moore/Coleman as just sort of standard fare, but we could also go 3 guard line ups as well as big with Ush there. The three guard line up I expect will be an option for us and one we probably utilize late in games to nurse leads. But I don't see it being a real option for our standard line up. We went away from it last year for a reason. Likewise I do expect us to have a big line up as an option, but I don't think it is likely to be the main stay. IMO experimenting against weaker teams isn't going to change either of those. What would is if one or more players just completely showed out in practice. For example if Kyle shows great mastership of running the team and Bubba regains his VMI form and just starts wearing it out from behind the arc, we might go to it more. But that would have to be the case against legit opponents. Same with something like Meka dominating in practice and forcing Ush to the 3. While it could happen, we would want to see it against legit competition as more of a judge.

And while its possible one of our situational line ups is the best, I don't see it surfacing as result of experimenting against weaker teams. It would more likely be a result of one or more players forcing the issue in practice.

*What I mean by locked is that I don't know who starts at center but I think it's pretty much guaranteed to be one of Howard/Gigi with the other being the primary back up. I think it's similar at PG with Sturdivant, Smith, and Bubba. While who is the starter and who is the back up is still in the air, that distinction won't change the overall dynamics of the team like it would as if we were considering Devoe being the only ball handler, which I don't see happening.

 

[gt24]

IMO it's less that your overstating the concern but more that you seem to be putting too much into games against weak opponents. IMO the roster issues will largely be determined based on practices, not games. Obviously the specific minutes split will be based on games but I don't think overly easy games provide great insight into that type of distinction.

IMO 4 of our spots are pretty much locked* (I'll explain what I mean by that in a second). IMO only the 3 position is really up in the air for experimenting. We could go Moore/Coleman as just sort of standard fare, but we could also go 3 guard line ups as well as big with Ush there. The three guard line up I expect will be an option for us and one we probably utilize late in games to nurse leads. But I don't see it being a real option for our standard line up. We went away from it last year for a reason. Likewise I do expect us to have a big line up as an option, but I don't think it is likely to be the main stay. IMO experimenting against weaker teams isn't going to change either of those. What would is if one or more players just completely showed out in practice. For example if Kyle shows great mastership of running the team and Bubba regains his VMI form and just starts wearing it out from behind the arc, we might go to it more. But that would have to be the case against legit opponents. Same with something like Meka dominating in practice and forcing Ush to the 3. While it could happen, we would want to see it against legit competition as more of a judge.

And while its possible one of our situational line ups is the best, I don't see it surfacing as result of experimenting against weaker teams. It would more likely be a result of one or more players forcing the issue in practice.

*What I mean by locked is that I don't know who starts at center but I think it's pretty much guaranteed to be one of Howard/Gigi with the other being the primary back up. I think it's similar at PG with Sturdivant, Smith, and Bubba. While who is the starter and who is the back up is still in the air, that distinction won't change the overall dynamics of the team like it would as if we were considering Devoe being the only ball handler, which I don't see happening.

that's a fair analysis and critique of my concern. if i were to boil it down: i hate the idea of pastner getting to Dec 1 and rolling out the same 7-8 guys a month before ACC play begins. so many "young" guys on this particular team who could theoretically improve markedly and rapidly with a *combination* of practice experience and game experience. but could end up just a notch behind another guy if all they get is practice experience in the 9-12 spots. some years/rosters an early commitment to the long-term 7/8-man rotation is beneficial. imo, this upcoming year ain't it for GT.

"young" = a variety of definitions... age, GT system experience, college game experience, ACC/P6 game experience, ACC/P6 starter experience who must produce consistently and not just occasionally as a role player.

side note: no one on the roster has more motivation for massive offseason improvement than khalid. his minutes could be taken in several different scenarios. traditional lineup (deebo), big lineup (ush at 3... least likely imo), small lineup (3-guard lineup). could see him improving his shooting and locking down major minutes; conversely, could see him losing a ton of minutes to one alternate player or a group of players based on different lineup strategies/scenarios all chipping away at khalid's minutes.

 

[lv20gt]

i hate the idea of pastner getting to Dec 1 and rolling out the same 7-8 guys a month before ACC play begins. so many "young" guys on this particular team who could theoretically improve markedly and rapidly with a *combination* of practice experience and game experience. but could end up just a notch behind another guy if all they get is practice experience in the 9-12 spots

Lets look at the team dynamics real quick.

Right now I would say the likely rotation is something like the following.

Starting back court - Sturdivant - Devoe - Coleman with K. Moore and Parham off the bench. Our starting front court being Ush and Howard with Gigi off the bench. IMO that is a very solid line up as is, and that alone should rule out the strategy of going super light in the OCC. Yes we have a lot of young players, but that strategy is more beneficial when we are forced to rely on young players, which we really aren't this year.

That would be an 8 man rotation and would likely see some K. Moore at the 4 when Ush leaves if I had to guess. A rotation larger than that just isn't likely if Ush and Devoe are playing the minutes we know they will. And IMO it's a pointless endeavor to pretend like Ush and Devoe won't play 30+ mpg against ACC teams. It just isn't a realistic concern. 10 man rotations are fantasy, and 9 man rotations are not nearly as easy to manage as some fans often pretend. Look at FSU's minutes last year where they had about a 9 man rotation, but it was because they had 1 averaging 28 mpg, 2 more at 25, and the rest under 20. Point is, I don't see us realistically going beyond an 8 man rotation in ACC play.

So, if any of the non included players were to improve to the extent to become a rotation player it would likely be at the expense of one of the 8 mentioned. IMO throw Devoe and Ush out of that consideration. So I would have two groups. The first is Meka and Smith in contention for the 5 and 1 spots respectively. Could either of them be good enough this year with development to be a rotation player at those spots? Sure. I could see Meka pushing out either Howard or Saba for a year at the 5, although size would be an issue, or Smith pushing either Sturdivant or Bubba out of the 1. However, if that were to happen I think it would have to stem from practice performance earning time against legit competition. I see no chance either of them would be getting very few minutes against legit competition but perform well enough against overmatched opponents to change that in time for ACC play. And in the case they do show out in practice, then an overly soft OOC will hinder their development in time for ACC play imo because games against the sisters of the poor are more about getting used to the speed of the game rather than preparing playes for ACC play. Now if we were forced to play a freshman come hell or high water then sure. But that's not the situation we are in.

Of the others, Maxwel, Kelly, J. Moore, meka at the 4 pushing ush to the 3, and even Coleman, are basically all looking to take minutes away from Khalid. My opinion is that Coleman is the most likely candidate, but it could be any. But I hold a similar view as above. I think the player most likely to do that is the one that earns it in practice and proves it against legit competition, not someone who doesn't get in unless it's against the sisters of the poor and suddenly shows out.

And all of this means I don't think the hit to the resume is worth it. We have a lot of experience returning and a solid group just with that experience. No need to tank our resume imo. If one or more of our young guys really is capable of helping that much, I have to believe they will prove it in practice and get in even against normal OOC teams.

 

[orientalnc]

This is the spot to discuss possible lineups and OOC opponents.

 

[slugboy]

Assuming that Jose and Moses are going pro regardless of the draft puts us in the upper middle of the ACC on most people’s boards.

For the B10-ACC challenge, I think that means we face Rutgers, Wisconsin, or Michigan State. Maybe Indiana or Penn State. I don’t think we’ll get slotted against Purdue, but that would be interesting. Indiana or Rutgers wouldn’t surprise me.

I don’t see us in a early season tournament, and I’m not sure why:

2021-22 Men’s College Basketball Exempt Multi-Team Events And Tournaments

A regularly updated list of the 2021-22 men’s college basketball season’s exempt multiple-team events (MTEs) and non-exempt tournaments, which will eventually include schedule and TV information. If you have any additions (non-Rothstein tweets, I already see those), email them to...

www.bloggingthebracket.com

 

[forensicbuzz]

Assuming that Jose and Moses are going pro regardless of the draft puts us in the upper middle of the ACC on most people’s boards.

For the B10-ACC challenge, I think that means we face Rutgers, Wisconsin, or Michigan State. Maybe Indiana or Penn State. I don’t think we’ll get slotted against Purdue, but that would be interesting. Indiana or Rutgers wouldn’t surprise me.

I don’t see us in a early season tournament, and I’m not sure why:

2021-22 Men’s College Basketball Exempt Multi-Team Events And Tournaments

A regularly updated list of the 2021-22 men’s college basketball season’s exempt multiple-team events (MTEs) and non-exempt tournaments, which will eventually include schedule and TV information. If you have any additions (non-Rothstein tweets, I already see those), email them to...

www.bloggingthebracket.com

I'll travel to Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Michigan State, and Michigan for sure. Ohio State and Iowa are a bit of a drive. May be the only game I get to see live this year. (Unless I get tickets to the ND game @ND).

 

[Steverc]

As a season ticket holder, I have no interest in watching teams and players I have never heard of. Furthermore, if we can't beat good teams we shouldn't be in the NCAA tournament. If we only play weak teams, we won't get invited anyway.

 

[dtm1997]

As a season ticket holder, I have no interest in watching teams and players I have never heard of. Furthermore, if we can't beat good teams we shouldn't be in the NCAA tournament. If we only play weak teams, we won't get invited anyway.

Which year have you been a season ticket holder where we didn't play teams you've "never heard of" aka low majors?