Sure looks like more than an adequate emergency PG to me.
Murph
- Thread starter Drew1208
- Start date
Well seeing as he’s coming in as a designated shooter at the 2, not a PG, I’d say you’re on to something.
A guy watches a clip of a three point shooting specialist knocking down threes in an empty gym and asks: but can he play defense?
Classic.
Someone has to be able to shoot the ball brah.
I’d always rather win period , but you have to remember that ACC level sports are really money generating entertainment vehicles for the schools involved . With the advent of the ACC network the schools are trying to increase their annual revenue beyond the 30 million per school they’re already receiving . Playing games with scores in the low fifties will only accomplish one thing and that’s for people to turn their TVs off . I don’t care what Pitts record is if they continually throw bricks up and win games by playing great defense they’ll never sell out the Pete like they did in the old days ! Almost everyone wants to see that great alley- oop dunk or great offensive performances . As big a Pitt bb fan that I am I could hardly watch Pitts loss to Wisconsin in the NCAAs and I guarantee you that CBS only kept that game on in the Pitt /Wisconsin viewing areas . Winning ugly always beats losing , but it loses fan appeal and that’s what it’s really all about .
I'll take winning 2-1 if it occurs.
Problem is, other teams inconveniently procure players who are talented. Bastards.
Problem is, other teams inconveniently procure players who are talented. Bastards.
Yet playing no defense and hence winning 0 acc games cratered interest.
Nobody watches a team for entertaining style of play - because losing isn’t entertaining.
Disagree .Fans want wins. an occasional boring game doesn't mean squat if the home team is a #1 seed. Otherwise, no one would watch soccer. We looked horrible with Young & Artis heaving all those treys.....and we lost. It isn't Project Runway. It's hoops....just play hard & win.
Good question. All I was trying to convey is that every team needs guys who can shoot the bottom out of the basket. Then it turned into the offense v. defense B.S. again. Like you're either Loyola Marymount under Westhead or Princeton under Pete Carroll, and there's no in between. Like if you have one three point shooting specialist in your 8-deep it kills your defense if he's a subpar defender. So pointless.
Winning games is all that matters, and any team that's going to win much has to be able to play both ends of the floor.
Well, much of this debate which repeatedly returns to the Board originates in the view of many (but not all) Pitt fans that Pitt will never be successful if it plays an up-tempo style (for example; similar to UNC) because Pitt will never be able to recruit at a UNC level. Thus, the conclusion for such Pitt fans is if Pitt is to be a top team in hoops (as they were at the peak of the Howland-Dixon run) that they must do it by defense and controlling pace and, thereby, keeping games relatively low scoring.
A further contributor to this debate involves the miss-perception by the Pitt administration (peaking with Barnes' Stallings presser) that the primary (only?) reason Pete attendance had plummeted during Dixon's last few seasons was due to the unexciting style of play rather than the decline in W vs L success. The admin, typified by Barnes, failed to realize that although many fans would like to see a more "up-tempo" style of play, they clearly did not want that style at the expense of W vs L success.
Winning and winning big was always a far, far higher Pitt fan priority than style of play. A sold out Pete won't happen again unless a high rate of winning is re-established. Style of play will mean little to Pete attendance if there isn't a return to repeated seasons of NCAA bids to teams with full season loss totals remaining in the single-digits.
A further contributor to this debate involves the miss-perception by the Pitt administration (peaking with Barnes' Stallings presser) that the primary (only?) reason Pete attendance had plummeted during Dixon's last few seasons was due to the unexciting style of play rather than the decline in W vs L success. The admin, typified by Barnes, failed to realize that although many fans would like to see a more "up-tempo" style of play, they clearly did not want that style at the expense of W vs L success.
Winning and winning big was always a far, far higher Pitt fan priority than style of play. A sold out Pete won't happen again unless a high rate of winning is re-established. Style of play will mean little to Pete attendance if there isn't a return to repeated seasons of NCAA bids to teams with full season loss totals remaining in the single-digits.
Last edited:
Well, much of this debate which repeatedly returns to the Board originates in the view of many (but not all) Pitt fans that Pitt will never be successful if it plays an up-tempo style (for example; similar to UNC) because Pitt will never be able to recruit at a UNC level. Thus, the conclusion for such Pitt fans is if Pitt is to be a top team in hoops (as they were at the peak of the Howland-Dixon run) that they must do it by defense and controlling pace and, thereby, keeping games relatively low scoring.
For sure--and I happen to subscribe to that very theory--we will never have the horses to win a fair fight with the UNCs and Dukes out there. I'd love to see us go back to the Dixon BE/Bennett UVA model of defense, rebounding and offensive efficiency--being a team nobody wants to play.
the problem is, you need some pretty good players, size and athleticism to do that successfully as well, and the occasional elite scoring talent or two to make a deep run.
Winning is a must , but playing boring uninspired bb wears thin . People find other things to entertain them like the Pens or just watch the game on tv . The Pete was emptying out the last few yrs of JDs tenure and they were still winning and making the tournament .
Last edited:
It is what it is . The fact that they don’t have zoo members lining up to buy season tickets after they graduate is puzzling to me .
They switch games all the time taking you to better or more competitive games except for your local viewing areas (Pitt = WPa )
They don't waiver much at all (any?) from the CBS-TNT-TBS-True TV format. Each game is basically shown in it's entirety on each designated station. The only time they change is when a game is over on one of the stations (say CBS) and they will then occasionally say "let's take a live look in on True-TV."
They haven't done so for years. I know this because I'm in a basket fantasy league where we draft players and I will sometimes watch the totality of a game with my players, and regardless of how close the game is (or isn't), they never cut away. Why would they -- the game is on another station?
That's why they went to this format -- to avoid having to make choices to cut away.
Spot on. I enjoyed watching lots of different players and teams. some were terrific, some not so much....but the best played hard all the time. Murph should be an asset that opens things up for the Dervishes.
" . . .they were still winning and making the tournament."
However, they were not winning as much the last few Dixon years due to a drop off in roster talent and they were barely squeaking into the tourney and then usually losing in the first round.
IMHO, that decreased level of winning caused far more of a problem with attendance than the style of play that accompanied it. Had DIxon not resorted to that "uninspiring" style of play things would have been even worse and we would have had what Stallings produced on the court a couple of years earlier along with the Pete not just being less than full, but instead almost completely empty as with Stallings.
Were the 2 teams with #1 seeds boring?? Winning isn't enough? Emptying out? Or just that frontrunners switched back to hockey?
The BE departure didn't help....fewer opponents to hate. If Adams had stayed, we might have been top 10.
No , I was talking about JDs last few yrs when attendance was decreasing every yr . JDs good teams had some very effective scorers like Sam Young , Blair , Gibbs .
Right. Other than the 30 second look in at another game, which is really just a promo for a game on a different channel so you don't switch to American Idol rather than another basketball game, they simply do not switch games any more. And haven't for years. If a game starts on CBS, it's on CBS in it's entirety. Other than a half time or between game look in, the game isn't showed on any other channel, period. If it starts on TBS, same thing. TNT, same thing. TruTV, same thing.
You'd think that college basketball fans would have noticed that by now.
Well that and the fact that they can make more money selling games to be shown on four channels than they could by selling games to be shown on one.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Recruiting Update Transfer rundown: Top targets, weekend visits and more
- Latest: zenmeister1992
-
-
-