(04-30-2019 09:26 PM)MercerFan Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2019 07:24 PM)Bucfaithful Wrote: [ -> ] (04-22-2019 06:19 PM)BucDoctor Wrote: [ -> ]This year's team was hyped to be the best since the "golden years". In my opinion the most hype since the Patterson/Floyd/Doggett teams that tied for second place in the SoCon years and never advanced to the NCAA tourney.
The reality is that this group produced even less for ETSU. A tie for 3rd place in the SoCon and a #4 tourney seed that didn't advance to a conference championship game.
I was concerned that I had been overly harsh in categorizing this team as eerily similar to the Patterson/Floyd/Herman/Doggett teams, but apparently I was instead, prophetic.
This assessment lacks context. The SOCON was historically good (top-10 throughout the season) with two teams cracking the top-25 and Wofford earning a record-setting 7-seed. The Bucs still won 24-wins & finished the season around a 70-rpi. If this was the days of being in the 30th-ranked ASUN, I'd agree with your assessment. This season, in this league, with these all-time great teams and players, I'd say this was a successful season.
No doubt about that Faithful. The SoCon was unbelievably good. ETSU, Furman or UNC-G had championship level teams any other year. For teams like Mercer it was impossible to have a decent year, and it got Hoffman fired. I really hope the SoCon can keep this momentum going. Mercer's incoming recruits are higher rated than I've ever seen. I have to believe that the quality of the SoCon is helping with that.
Not trying to speak for BucDoctor, as he can do that for himself........but I think this part of his statement, at least, is true - or in the neighborhood of it:
"This year's team was hyped to be the best since the "golden years". In my opinion the most hype since the Patterson/Floyd/Doggett teams that tied for second place in the SoCon years and never advanced to the NCAA tourney."
Maybe (this year) hyped by those on this board instead of the press and just all-around talk, like we had back then, but it was hyped a lot. The year HMP became eligible may be close - hard to say.
Also........when that group were juniors (Trazel and Darell were seniors), they 'only' played 30 games; the next year, only 28; as compared to 34 this year. It was harder to win 20 or 25 back then, something I've pointed out before, but recent touters (esp. ETSU staff) fail to acknowledge or mention. When that group were juniors, their OOC schedule included Michigan State
twice, Xavier, Rhode Island (they were good back then), Virginia Tech, Marquette, and SMU. That's 7 losses right there - instead of maybe 2 to 4 that we take in recent years in that time period. Tied with Davey for second *in our division*. The following year, again tied for second in the division, after losing OOC games to Tennessee, East Carolina twice (back when they were at least decent), Virginia Tech, Texas Tech, and Kansas. That's 6 losses right there. Point being, finishing .500 on the year, as both those teams did, isn't *quite* as bad as it would look without examining the details.
All that said................imo they most certainly massively underachieved, as BucDoctor is saying. Which is *not* to say Bucfaithful (along with most everybody else, too) isn't also correct in saying how strong the league was this year. But back then, we had to tangle with Davey, Marshall, and superior Chatt teams. Even WCU and VMI had some good teams that beat us, as both did that senior season of that team. Was the SoCon tougher back then than now? Not likely, but I don't think we can say it wasn't, either. I think the weaker teams in the league now may be slightly weaker than the bottom teams then, but that's really a judgement call, unless someone has access to a supercomputer to back-check everything.
Now.............as to BucDoctor's assertion that this team produced even less, it's really dependent on what metrics one uses. Certainly a tie for 3rd is worse than two second places (in the division) - or is it? I'd say that if a team is second, and/or tied for second in a two-division league, that that equates (very roughly) to about a 3rd place finish in a one-division league.
2018-2019: 70.6% WP (72% conference)
1993-1994: 16-14 (52%)/(13-5) (72% conference)
1994-1995: 14-14 (50%)/(9-5) (64% conference) in '94-'95.
In NONE of those years did we play in the conference championship game.
One can clearly see the harder OOC schedule having an effect there. Conference-wise, pretty similar. So let's say, just for argument's sake, that in those earlier years, we played an OOC schedule more similar to today's. Then those 16- and 14-win teams maybe go to 20- and 18-wins. Add in more games like we play now, and those seasons maybe become 22- and 20-win teams - or more. That's still underachieving with that talent, however.
IMO, this year's team underachieved by losing early to Georgia St. and Creighton, and playing Wofford so early. Let's say we win at least one of those had they been later in the year. But they weren't - and we lost maybe more because of so many new players - or at least that's a very plausible theory.
Anyway, it's hard to say. One could say that it comes down to whether this year's SoCon was better than 1994 or not. Impossible to tell, but likely better because there were 4 very strong teams this year. And remember, 1993-94 was
only 2 years removed from beating AZ. Expectations were SKY HIGH.
The point of all this is that, altho I think most would say we underachieved this year, it likely wasn't to the degree that those 1993-1994 teams did. Another hard part about quantifying that is that how does one judge
degree of "hype"?
BucDoctor's
"In my opinion the most hype since the Patterson/Floyd/Doggett teams...." I think is accurate. The "eerily similar" comparison may be a stretch; the question is degree....