(10-17-2016 08:02 PM)BeagleUSM Wrote: At this point, I'm just holding out hope we can pull something off in baseball (the ONE sport where we have a shot at national relevance).
On the highlight play that someone posted in this thread, the first problem is that we got absolutely nothing out of our D-Line. They got moved a bunch. Second, Parker getting blocked is not fine. They try to block you every play. Your job is to not get blocked or get off the block in time to make a play. However, it's not nearly as bad as what Perry does on that play. That is just terrible. He's constantly in the wrong place. I don't know if I can even blame it on coaching because he's been that way his whole career. I don't mean to bash him but he isn't any good. Antoine may or may not be in the right spot. No way for me to know without knowing the ins and outs of our defense. In football 2016, safeties have a lot of responsibilities in the run game due to how offenses have forced defenses to adjust.
(10-17-2016 08:02 PM)BeagleUSM Wrote: At this point, I'm just holding out hope we can pull something off in baseball (the ONE sport where we have a shot at national relevance).
while I understand the embedded passion in the 'burg for southern miss baseball......it doesn't do sqauw-douche for the two programs the rest of the nation care about in viewership terms....
hell, we could be in whatever conference and still field the same on the diamond as we do now or have in the past...
the big picture just doesn't care about college baseball...this town does....the rest of 'murica couldn't care less....
and in any discussion that implies the 'how' to move forward, it just seems silly to how too many bring up baseball....
investing in hoops is the missing link if southern miss is to have any chance during the final juggling of realignment....at this point it's worse than waiting too long to build the addition at the rock...and that took wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy tooooooooooooooooooooo lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng
...to be brutally honest, we may need to start thinking the way witchy st and others do......there's big bank in hoops with far less expenses than football....just sayin'....our hoops marketing group doesn't have a chance right now....
now that tv/streaming is changing to the point where almost any game is accessible.....AND we now know what those tv dollars are worth....AND at our level that has basically zero chance of changing regardless once the big dogs leave the bottom p5 feeders and the leftovers jockey for position.....it's gonna be hoops AND football that turns heads in ~decade
(This post was last modified: 10-17-2016 08:48 PM by stinkfist.)
I know. I love Southern Miss basketball as well, and go to most home games. But the reality in basketball is that it comes down to 3-4 days in Birmingham in March. No shot at an at-large unless we win 29-30 games.
(This post was last modified: 10-17-2016 08:38 PM by BeagleUSM.)
(10-17-2016 08:38 PM)BeagleUSM Wrote: I know. I love Southern Miss basketball as well, and go to most home games. But the reality in basketball is that it comes down to 3-4 days in Birmingham in March. No shot at an at-large unless we win 29-30 games.
that could change if we improved facilities and focus.....having said that, I completely agree if we remain the same...
hell, I'll toss one more caveat towards hoops.....it's the one sport where men and women can generate revenue if the dedication was about growing both programs....
we're basically stuck with what we have on the gridiron....recruiting talent and hiring competent coaches is about all that is left there at this point in the game....
the potential in hoops and the residual that could come out of dedicating monies and resources is just sitting there waiting to be tapped.....\
but we'll whiff that one like all the rest.....it's almost a gimme that happens....
....and "they" will still wonder why................
(10-17-2016 09:39 PM)stinkfist Wrote: hell, I'll toss one more caveat towards hoops.....it's the one sport where men and women can generate revenue if the dedication was about growing both programs....
we're basically stuck with what we have on the gridiron....recruiting talent and hiring competent coaches is about all that is left there at this point in the game....
the potential in hoops and the residual that could come out of dedicating monies and resources is just sitting there waiting to be tapped.....\
but we'll whiff that one like all the rest.....it's almost a gimme that happens....
....and "they" will still wonder why................
Total BS......
Only schools like Kty, UNC, and Uconn make money on b'ball......
(10-17-2016 09:39 PM)stinkfist Wrote: hell, I'll toss one more caveat towards hoops.....it's the one sport where men and women can generate revenue if the dedication was about growing both programs....
we're basically stuck with what we have on the gridiron....recruiting talent and hiring competent coaches is about all that is left there at this point in the game....
the potential in hoops and the residual that could come out of dedicating monies and resources is just sitting there waiting to be tapped.....\
but we'll whiff that one like all the rest.....it's almost a gimme that happens....
....and "they" will still wonder why................
Total BS......
Only schools like Kty, UNC, and Uconn make money on b'ball......
there is no denying the big conferences have their advantages as there are many schools making money from hoops that are in basketball only or smaller conferences....in total, there are 120+ schools that made money from their basketball program last year
as long as we ignore our facilities, it's a guarantee we'll never be in a position to move anywhere other than sideways....
another thing many forget, is renovating the yurt offers opportunities outside of basketball in the revenue dept....
but whatever.....keep applying that spin that it's smart to continue to ignore hoops...
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2016 11:39 AM by stinkfist.)
(10-18-2016 08:41 AM)99beers Wrote: What is making money? 1 dollar? A thou?
does it matter?
residual dollars are immeasurable other than budgeting expansion...
that's the kicker too many overlook....make more, spend more...it's called "growth"
as a simple example, look what the ez expansion did relative to ticket sales and interest....
reinvesting is a simple concept.....more revenue, more spending on improvements, more recruiting interest, more etc.....more is better until spending exceeds revenue/donations/subsidies....but that's an entire other issue...
sitting on our arse and doing nothing will only yield the same amount of nothing...
(10-18-2016 08:41 AM)99beers Wrote: What is making money? 1 dollar? A thou?
Beers, sorry dude but you're way off on this one. Round ball can operate in the black, many schools accomplish just that. Let's say Southern Miss only makes $1 for both men and women's hoops; this alone will provide essential dollars as both are seriously in the red today.
The reality is we have no vision for basketball. It's just there. It's just been there for twenty-five years. Sure, we had a few years where we were decent, but then what did we do? Nothing. We didn't invest in the program. We didn't upgrade our facilities. It's pathetic. Then we hire a coach who has no energy about him whatsoever when that has proven EVERY SINGLE TIME to be what sells sports to Southern Miss fans. Fedora had it. Tyndall had it. And our programs grew under both of those men, no matter how you view them now. And I'll be fair, Sadler came into a really bad situation and I won't blame him for our results so far, but you have to be able to sell fans that your product is worth coming out to watch. Unless we're winning tremendously, he'll never be able to do it. He doesn't have the personality to excite the fanbase.
But if we really think about it, Reed Green personifies Southern Miss athletics really well. Always about twenty years behind the rest of the country. Marketing sucks. Fundraising sucks. Gameday experience sucks. And almost every single problem we have could be solved with good leadership that's willing to say "I don't care how much money you have, you aren't controlling me and what's best for our program." The reality is that our program isn't run by an AD, but by a few men with a lot of money who are more than okay with the status quo as long as they keep their power. And they don't care about basketball, that's obvious.
(10-18-2016 10:22 AM)EagNBran Wrote: The reality is we have no vision for basketball. It's just there. It's just been there for twenty-five years. Sure, we had a few years where we were decent, but then what did we do? Nothing. We didn't invest in the program. We didn't upgrade our facilities. It's pathetic. Then we hire a coach who has no energy about him whatsoever when that has proven EVERY SINGLE TIME to be what sells sports to Southern Miss fans. Fedora had it. Tyndall had it. And our programs grew under both of those men, no matter how you view them now. And I'll be fair, Sadler came into a really bad situation and I won't blame him for our results so far, but you have to be able to sell fans that your product is worth coming out to watch. Unless we're winning tremendously, he'll never be able to do it. He doesn't have the personality to excite the fanbase.
But if we really think about it, Reed Green personifies Southern Miss athletics really well. Always about twenty years behind the rest of the country. Marketing sucks. Fundraising sucks. Gameday experience sucks. And almost every single problem we have could be solved with good leadership that's willing to say "I don't care how much money you have, you aren't controlling me and what's best for our program." The reality is that our program isn't run by an AD, but by a few men with a lot of money who are more than okay with the status quo as long as they keep their power. And they don't care about basketball, that's obvious.
it's nice to see others sharing similar viewpoints.....raw and well stated!
it's disturbing when people state, "hattiesburg isn't a hoops town"
...and they wonder why....sigh to those that forget the keys, fisher, white, hamilton pettus, spoon days when we once packed that place....
(10-16-2016 11:54 PM)Reggie Favre Wrote: lets observe this play. sure, there was some fine blocking where one of their guys blocked three of ours. but what is the real problem here? bc its happening far too often. looks like the LB in between the hashes was just kind of lost and hesitated and then just roamed through the gap. was that some sort of delayed blitz? was he supposed to have shot the gap like that? had he stayed put, he would have been in position to at least make an attempt at a tackle. parker simply got blocked and thats fine. d'nerius antoine came rushing in from the safety spot and over ran the play. it didnt even make sense the way he played that. i mean s***. shouldn't he wait to see who has the damned ball before he runs to the line of scrimmage, aimed at no one? if thats a safety blitz that keeps getting us in trouble....then lets stop doing it.
This has been the problem this year with the defense giving up big plays. Last year, Antoine was our leading tackler. This year, our safeties have digressed badly. Antoine and Foster are routinely getting beat and are out of position. Remember last year when they were entertaining the idea of making Antoine a LB? Well it looks like he put on a little too much weight because he runs like a LB now and not a safety.
This, coupled with the fact that Perry at MLB is too slow and you have many uncontested long touchdowns by the other team. Parker and Ruff can play but those gaping holes straight up the middle are Perry and Antoine's responsibility.
(10-16-2016 11:54 PM)Reggie Favre Wrote: lets observe this play. sure, there was some fine blocking where one of their guys blocked three of ours. but what is the real problem here? bc its happening far too often. looks like the LB in between the hashes was just kind of lost and hesitated and then just roamed through the gap. was that some sort of delayed blitz? was he supposed to have shot the gap like that? had he stayed put, he would have been in position to at least make an attempt at a tackle. parker simply got blocked and thats fine. d'nerius antoine came rushing in from the safety spot and over ran the play. it didnt even make sense the way he played that. i mean s***. shouldn't he wait to see who has the damned ball before he runs to the line of scrimmage, aimed at no one? if thats a safety blitz that keeps getting us in trouble....then lets stop doing it.
This has been the problem this year with the defense giving up big plays. Last year, Antoine was our leading tackler. This year, our safeties have digressed badly. Antoine and Foster are routinely getting beat and are out of position. Remember last year when they were entertaining the idea of making Antoine a LB? Well it looks like he put on a little too much weight because he runs like a LB now and not a safety.
This, coupled with the fact that Perry at MLB is too slow and you have many uncontested long touchdowns by the other team. Parker and Ruff can play but those gaping holes straight up the middle are Perry and Antoine's responsibility.
the more I watch that play, the more it makes me want to take a dump....
don't you run head up, eyes open.....just wtf are ya thinking on that one unless you only see a diagram on the board and laser in on scripting....
(This post was last modified: 10-19-2016 05:17 PM by stinkfist.)
(10-17-2016 08:31 PM)Eagle9 Wrote: On the highlight play that someone posted in this thread, the first problem is that we got absolutely nothing out of our D-Line. They got moved a bunch. Second, Parker getting blocked is not fine. They try to block you every play. Your job is to not get blocked or get off the block in time to make a play.
uumm, i take issue with this comment. it IS in fact "fine" that Parker got blocked on this play. Parker played a heck of a game. probably played the best of anyone on the entire team. its football, people get blocked in football. in fact, it happens every single play in every single game that has ever been played in the history of football. someone gets blocked. you cant expect someone to "not get blocked or get off the block" every single play.
Parker was a 6'1, 215lb JUCO transfer with his only offer being from USM, according to rivals. Parker was blocked by a 6'5, 338lb 5-star recruit (rivals), who's primary responsibility was to block Parker. so yeah, its fine that Parker got blocked on a play by someone who outweighs him by 120lbs, and will be playing in the NFL in a year or two.
(This post was last modified: 10-20-2016 05:02 PM by Reggie Favre.)