FINAL USA TODAY MBB Poll: PSU #30! *
- Thread starter ILLINOISLION
- Start date
Ahhh... nothing is in a vacuum. Players improve. Mie and Harrar are just starting to get it. The MVP of the NIT is returning (Lamar). We have a pretty solid recruiting class coming in, including a 3 pt bomber.
How do you define "solid recruiting class"? Pretty much every at-large team that made the tournament this year would be unhappy with our class. Recruiting has to get better. We'll find out soon enough
Wow....calling me an idiot. Funny coming from a guy who actually posted that Harrar is better than Watkins....might want to check who the idiot is. I think you win that title running away.
Yep, right now the class is ranked 68 by 247. And we know the top 68 teams do not all get into the NCAA. And many of the traditional powers had more depth this year than PSU has. I don't see the class, the current 3 players, moving PSU into the NCAA. There is at least 1 spot left. Time for Chambers to get a difference maker. And a good, solid grad transfer could be a differnce maker for this team with the pieces that are now in place (if they all return, obviously excluding Carr). Here's a list:
https://gradtransfertracker.com/potential-transfers-1/
Last edited:
You have to be an idiot to not understand that "young" at Duke and Kentucky isn't the same thing in any way as "young" at the normal programs.
I think there were 80 teams better than us thru the first 2.5 months, but only 15-20 better than what we eventually became in the last 2 months.
Dread made the final four HS three point contest and is really going to turn some heads during his time here (top 150 player). He had really been playing well on the AAU circuit since he committed to us.
A college friend of mine coached Rasir Bolton and said that the kid can really ball. He can really score and is very clutch - his ranking isn't bad either but recruiting rankings are really a crap shoot in basketball (aside from the top players)..
Watkins averaged 12 pts and 9 rebounds per game. He was near the top of the conference in rebounds, blocks, and FG%. He catches the ball very well in traffic and runs the floor very well for a big man.
My criticism about Watkins is that he's too quick to leave his feet and commits silly fouls.
Need a PG. Hopefully we can get a goid grad transfer.
Sophomores haven't been young for any basketball program in decades.
Just saying it doesn't make it so. Show me any program in the country that isn't a traditional power and made the NCAA tournament with a group of sophomores. I'll wait.
Go ahead, show me the examples of non-blue bloods who made the tournament with their best 3 players being sophomores. If it's so true, you must have tons of examples. Go ahead.
Not what I said. You said New Era was right. So back it up. Name the non-blue blood programs who made the NCAA tournament being led by sophomores. I'm still waiting.
Still waiting, you know you dont have an answer, so he was not right, nor are you.
Haha, you mean the question that evidences whether he's right or wrong, that's not relevant? It's hilarious when you can't admit you're wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about and can't back it up with a single example of how he's correct.
At least you aren't alone. He can't provide one example, 78sweet can't, you can't. You all act like sophomores from non-blue bloods shouldn't be an issue, but none of you can provide even ONE example of such a group making the NCAA tournament. But just keep saying the coaching sucks, that's much easier.
Last edited:
Apparently some believe all teams are equal and the only difference is coaching. Video game wizards.
Guess what? They won't be sophomores next year. And the best of them is leaving. Oh, next year we'll hang our hats on a couple incoming freshman to pick up the slack of Carr and Garner being gone. And then when we don't make the NCAAs again, you can say it's because those guys were freshmen. Give me a freakin' break.
@NewEra 2014 also pointed out how this team should have made the NCAAs. I agree. There was enough talent to garner another 3 or 4 wins for sure and it didn't happen. Now we lose the best player and one of the best shooters and you think next year will be better. The smart money says this team will struggle to get to .500 in the conference again and hope for another NIT birth. Well let me tell you, that's just not going to cut it. Not in year 8. But keep on with your diatribes against those who speak the truth. When do we get to the NCAAs? Year 17 of the Chambers era? Never?
We're only starting to get "those" sophomores. We've never had them before under any coach. Battle may have been the only exception.
Howie, I think the team could be better next year. Garner is a big loss, to be sure. He really understands the game and was willing to subordinate his role to accommodate Carr. Harrar is the same type of kid. When you have a shoot-first point guard like Carr, your bigs need to concentrate on defense and rebounding, and Harrar did a great job of that. Carr's game for much of the year really stifled Watkins' development as an offensive player, in my view.
It took until mid-February for Carr to begin to learn to distribute the ball well. To be fair, Carr did improve meaningfully towards the end of the year. But if Penn State gets a PG who can distribute the ball to players like Stevens and Watkins, you may see more balanced scoring out of Penn State. You may also see Stevens and Watkins start to reach their potential, which is very high. Watkins may also be less prone to stepping in to cover for his teammates defensively and committing silly fouls if the team is more committed to defense, with a player like Harrar in the mix.
There is still no question that Penn State should have made the NCAAs in 2017-18, but I'm not ready to write off 2018-19 yet.
Is saying “Penn State has never had a good basketball program” at all controversial?
It's possible, but there are a number of "ifs" there. As usual, I'm from Missouri when I consider this team. Show me.
First, I didn't say we'll be better next year, so not sure why you're putting words in my mouth. Second, you can get angry all you want, this is the reality of our program when there's no financial support or better facilities. So what Chambers is doing is as good as we can hope for IMO, unless there's a significant change in funding/facilities. Unless you're writing a check, that's just not happening. So yes I'll argue against folks who bitch about Chambers when replacing him now would just set us back to being atrocious again.
Great. We'll peak at mediocrity. Wonderful. And if you've been reading my posts the last couple months, I've railed against the lack of support for hoops by the school. The program makes money and none is plowed back into it. Stinks if you ask me. Listen, you have me all wrong. I understand hoops very well and love the sport. Played a lot back in the day and have been a fervent college basketball fan. That being the case, I want the team to be good, not mediocre. And not good for the occasional flash in the pan year. Regularly competitive. We just aren't there and I don't see us getting there on the current track. The way I see it, the only reason we're playing the sport is because it's cash positive. I see no point to playing otherwise if you don't want to be good.
You said replacing Pat brings us back to atrocious. That depends, doesn't it? Does the next guy have recruiting chops? Will we pay to get a guy who does? Will we invest in facilities? I've lived with atrocious PSU basketball for many years and survived, but if the program really wants to be good, the school is not going about it in the right way. In for a penny, then in for a pound, I say. Otherwise I'll just watch other good teams play like I always have.
We just disagree, that's alright. I think what Pat is doing has the potential to make us the consistent winner you want. We're consistently recruiting legitimate B1G players the last 3-4 years, something we never did consistent in the preceding 15 years where we had to just hope for a diamond in the rough and a flash in the pan season with seniors. That consistency in recruiting should lead to more consistent on-court success. The problem is, we have such little room for error due to our constraints (funding, facilities, no tradition) that the progress can easily be knocked off track by an injury, suspension, transfer. I just don't think there's another coach who is going to come to Penn State and do a better job consistently recruiting than Pat has developed. Understand if you think otherwise.
Most of this I agree with except that good coaches get paid and IF Pat were replaced in any meaningful way, you'd have to pay someone more than Pat gets. That's part of the investment. Hell, I've argued that even if things play out perfectly with Pat and he becomes a consistent winner at Penn State, THE SCHOOL WILL HAVE TO PAY HIM TO KEEP HIM!!! Will they?
Our best 3 players weren't sophomores. Garner was a senior. Even if you want to say Stevens, Carr & Watkins were our best 3 that still irrelevant. And define blue blood. All that matters is talent and coaching...experience in basketball is highly overrated. Recruit better
Experience matters a lot if you aren't loading up with McDonald's all-Americans. That's proven by the roster makeup of every team in the NCAA tournament who doesn't have those McDonald's all Americans.
What are you talking about? Experience does not matter at all. Watch Krutwig in the NCAA Tournament. Freshman that was their best player on the floor against Michigan. Sophomores have more than enough experience. You're making excuses. The program isn't any better off today than it was when Chambers arrived and we'll see that next year.
You have to look at "others receiving votes":
http://sportspolls.usatoday.com/ncaa/basketball-men/polls/coaches-poll/
