(02-19-2018 01:51 PM)Kayjay Wrote:  The most telling statistic for this team is their 3 point shooting accuracy. If the current Owls could shoot 3-pointers at a .362 rate, instead of the current .325 clip, this team might have won 10 games this season, as did Coach Rhoades first team.

I had been thinking the same thing. Despite some concerns about Lapray's defense (I didn't see him enough on my computer screen to comment), I think Rice really misses his shooting ability. Having Cashaw's 3-pt% drop (38.8% --> 37.4% --> 33.1%) and Adams' 3-pt% drop (35.6% --> 33.1%) hurts, and there hasn't been anyone close to Koulechov's ability to pick up the slack with both of them missing more than last season.

Is there any evidence that Rice did not have a succession plan and that Pera wasn't part of that plan? Or is this just prognostication based on the fact that it took 6 days (or whatever) to announce Pera as the successor? Perhaps Pera was the successor plan, but Rice was thinking they would have Rhoades for 1 more season, so they wanted to have a few additional interviews to be safe?

Rhoades was announced as new VCU coach on March 21. Pera was announced as new Rice coach on March 23.

(02-20-2018 12:28 PM)WestGrayStreetOwl Wrote:  Rhoades was announced as new VCU coach on March 21. Pera was announced as new Rice coach on March 23.

Thanks. Had the time gap off.

In my mind the general point still stands. If Pera was our HC-in-waiting, why did we wait till the 23rd?

(02-20-2018 12:58 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 12:28 PM)WestGrayStreetOwl Wrote:  Rhoades was announced as new VCU coach on March 21. Pera was announced as new Rice coach on March 23.

Thanks. Had the time gap off.

In my mind the general point still stands. If Pera was our HC-in-waiting, why did we wait till the 23rd?

Because we spent the 22nd negotiating Pera’s contract? I mean, even if the decision had been made before Rhodes left, I suspect you try to keep Rhoades until the end. And then you make sure you have a contract in writing before you announce so you don’t look like Tennessee did.

(02-19-2018 09:55 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 09:36 PM)gsloth Wrote:  Put me in the block that says goodbye to anyone who wants to go. Put a restriction on someone we're going to compete against? I can see that. But VCU because his coach went there? Not a big deal, IMO.

And VCU may be starting to backslide already. This has not been a pretty season, and it hasn't exactly been dominating the last few, either.

The student-athletes already are on the wrong side of what are essentially annually-renewable contracts for their scholarships, where the institution can pull it if they don't have plans for you anymore (see most of the SEC football factories for this example) but schools can restrict the student's movement for any reason whatsoever (and have to sit out after transferring to a like institution). Sometimes trying to even restrict walk-ons not on scholarship (like Baker Mayfield).

So if there's a competitive issue, then set the restrictions. But this one doesn't hit my threshold.

Ordinarily I agree; VCU by itself isn't an issue. The problem is Rice should have been clear UP FRONT about any attempt to leave and take players will be met with a restriction.

Rhoades is an at-will employee, he can leave as he wishes, but he cannot raid the cupboard on the way out. IMO, that should have been stated clearly to Rhoades, every assistant and every player.

I just think Rice sets poor precedents. So far based on the Greenspan/Bailiff/Braun/Williams/Rhoades/pera situations the precedents set are
1. You won't be fired for sucking at your job
2. You won't be fired outright for being a racist, you will be allowed to resign
3. You can use Rice as your own stepping stone and raid the cupboard on the way out and no one will do anything
4. We have no succession planning in place.

IMO, Rice is stuck in the 50's where companies have loyalty and employees stay happily for 40 years. We have to change 1 thru 4. And yes, it may be a little cutthroat to say no, but Rice needs that - desperately. We need to signal we aren't a walkover anymore and yes, you can use us as a stepping stone but to the mutual benefit of both parties, not just one.

Say we hire the next Phil Jackson. He takes Rice to the dance and then bolts. The precedent we have set is that he can gut the program on the way out. How do we ever improve? We will be stuck in the cycle of terrible and mediocre-trending-good forever.

Just to be pedantic...the terms of an employment contract such as the one that Coach Rhoades had with Rice University overrides the "at will" employment status that non contracted employees have in Texas and several other states. The contracts stipulate what occurs in the event he voluntarily terminated or if Rice terminated him while the contract is still in force.

I do agree with your point that Rice's situation requires a deft touch with employment agreements with coaches to help mitigate against using the University as a stepping stone, or on the other hand, a retirement stipend....Neither of these situations are fair to the student athletes that agree to work and compete on behalf of the University.

It is far more than just the contract, Rice needs to carefully assess the "character" and culture fit of the coaching candidate for fit and understanding the type of Student athlete that can succeed at the University. Coach Bloomgren seems to be one who is articulating those cultural standards as he assembles his staff and recruits for his program.

College Basketball is increasingly challenged with student transfer and coach's not fulfilling their contracts issues. Rice has been the poster child for this transfer problem since Coach Wilson was terminated. It did not start with Coach Rhoades. Coach Braun would routinely lose 2 to 3 players a year before the big exodus when Kazemi, Oraby, Reischel, Ibrahim, & Ennis left. Coach Peera and his team have to carefully find the right fits for this program and then firmly integrate them into the University culture.

What I cannot fathom is how Marquez Lechter-Ellis fell thru the cracks. As I have been told, he did not qualify academically at Nevada because he quit going to class his spring semester at Rice. If this is true, where were the Coaches while this was going on? Under Coach Wilson, I know that players were routinely disciplined if they missed class. Why did Coach Rhoades (thru March) and Coach Peera (after March) allow this to occur (again....if it is true)? Even if MLE told the staff he was going to transfer, a Coach should have enough of a relationship with his player and care enough about him to make sure he does not do something that personally destructive.

(02-20-2018 01:26 PM)Kayjay Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 09:55 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 09:36 PM)gsloth Wrote:  Put me in the block that says goodbye to anyone who wants to go. Put a restriction on someone we're going to compete against? I can see that. But VCU because his coach went there? Not a big deal, IMO.

And VCU may be starting to backslide already. This has not been a pretty season, and it hasn't exactly been dominating the last few, either.

The student-athletes already are on the wrong side of what are essentially annually-renewable contracts for their scholarships, where the institution can pull it if they don't have plans for you anymore (see most of the SEC football factories for this example) but schools can restrict the student's movement for any reason whatsoever (and have to sit out after transferring to a like institution). Sometimes trying to even restrict walk-ons not on scholarship (like Baker Mayfield).

So if there's a competitive issue, then set the restrictions. But this one doesn't hit my threshold.

Ordinarily I agree; VCU by itself isn't an issue. The problem is Rice should have been clear UP FRONT about any attempt to leave and take players will be met with a restriction.

Rhoades is an at-will employee, he can leave as he wishes, but he cannot raid the cupboard on the way out. IMO, that should have been stated clearly to Rhoades, every assistant and every player.

I just think Rice sets poor precedents. So far based on the Greenspan/Bailiff/Braun/Williams/Rhoades/pera situations the precedents set are
1. You won't be fired for sucking at your job
2. You won't be fired outright for being a racist, you will be allowed to resign
3. You can use Rice as your own stepping stone and raid the cupboard on the way out and no one will do anything
4. We have no succession planning in place.

IMO, Rice is stuck in the 50's where companies have loyalty and employees stay happily for 40 years. We have to change 1 thru 4. And yes, it may be a little cutthroat to say no, but Rice needs that - desperately. We need to signal we aren't a walkover anymore and yes, you can use us as a stepping stone but to the mutual benefit of both parties, not just one.

Say we hire the next Phil Jackson. He takes Rice to the dance and then bolts. The precedent we have set is that he can gut the program on the way out. How do we ever improve? We will be stuck in the cycle of terrible and mediocre-trending-good forever.

Just to be pedantic...the terms of an employment contract such as the one that Coach Rhoades had with Rice University overrides the "at will" employment status that non contracted employees have in Texas and several other states. The contracts stipulate what occurs in the event he voluntarily terminated or if Rice terminated him while the contract is still in force.

I do agree with your point that Rice's situation requires a deft touch with employment agreements with coaches to help mitigate against using the University as a stepping stone, or on the other hand, a retirement stipend....Neither of these situations are fair to the student athletes that agree to work and compete on behalf of the University.

It is far more than just the contract, Rice needs to carefully assess the "character" and culture fit of the coaching candidate for fit and understanding the type of Student athlete that can succeed at the University. Coach Bloomgren seems to be one who is articulating those cultural standards as he assembles his staff and recruits for his program.

College Basketball is increasingly challenged with student transfer and coach's not fulfilling their contracts issues. Rice has been the poster child for this transfer problem since Coach Wilson was terminated. It did not start with Coach Rhoades. Coach Braun would routinely lose 2 to 3 players a year before the big exodus when Kazemi, Oraby, Reischel, Ibrahim, & Ennis left. Coach Peera and his team have to carefully find the right fits for this program and then firmly integrate them into the University culture.

What I cannot fathom is how Marquez Lechter-Ellis fell thru the cracks. As I have been told, he did not qualify academically at Nevada because he quit going to class his spring semester at Rice. If this is true, where were the Coaches while this was going on? Under Coach Wilson, I know that players were routinely disciplined if they missed class. Why did Coach Rhoades (thru March) and Coach Peera (after March) allow this to occur (again....if it is true)? Even if MLE told the staff he was going to transfer, a Coach should have enough of a relationship with his player and care enough about him to make sure he does not do something that personally destructive.

If I remember correctly MLE was playing a “who wants me the most” game and trying to see if he should stay or leave. I doubt he really cared about the month and a half of classes he had left. I’d guess you can’t lose academic eligibility in a single semester though. You’re usually put on probation of some sort.

(02-19-2018 09:55 PM)Antarius Wrote:  The problem is Rice should have been clear UP FRONT about any attempt to leave and take players will be met with a restriction.

Rhoades is an at-will employee, he can leave as he wishes, but he cannot raid the cupboard on the way out. IMO, that should have been stated clearly to Rhoades, every assistant and every player.

I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect that your point here may underestimate the relationship that student athletes have with their coaches, especially in a sport with so few team members. You can ask/demand (and I think Rhoades at least gave lip service to this) that your outgoing coach not recruit his former players, but is it reasonable to demand he deny a transfer request made by the player? We want our coaches to be great recruiters, and while we hope that our coaches are selling the university at least as much as they sell themselves it's easy to understand that a kid will often make a choice based on the guy in his living room. When that guy leaves...

(02-20-2018 05:56 PM)Snozberry Wrote:  First off, when a team loses 6 of its top 7 scorers, single digit wins should be expected. Its unfair to blame Pera in this situation, especially as a first year head coach. To me, the biggest issue with this team has been turnovers. As I suspected we are ranked 331st in the country with 15.4 per game. Cashaw, even as the best player on the team, has regressed with the increased workload. Ako Adams has 2.7 turnovers per game as the starting point guard. Not good. The reason Lester has gotten significant playing time is because he does a better job of taking care of the ball. But it doesn't make sense to play them both at the same time, which Pera has done many times this year. Mency has played as I expected, kind of inconsistent but still has played pretty well relatively speaking. I like the decision by Pera to start Osborne and Hunter as freshmen. There are going to be growing pains but the team will be better next year because of it. I don't know whats going on with Meyer, I keep on hearing he's injured but he looks healthy when he plays. It doesn't make sense to keep playing him less than 10 minutes per game when he continues to play well. Especially vs. WKU, they had some tough big men that were just bullying us inside yet Pera for some reason refuses to put him in as we continue to get crushed on the glass.

Plus one to all of that, especially the comments about playing both point guards at the same time and limiting Meyer’s playing time. I don’t get either of those decisions. Just to be clear, I don’t see those as firing offenses. They may not even be offenses.

You know, looking back at that team in Rhoades' first year I am doubting that our current starting 5 is better than that starting 5. Mency is better today but not as much better as I would have hoped. No one today is as good of an outside shooter as Seth was. I'd say Cashaw is a push with Marcus Jackson that year. No one is as a good ball handler as Guercy, who was a Senior with plenty of playing time. Drone played as well as any of our current bigs, save for Osborne who only has developed over the season.

So in summary:

Mency < Mency
Gearhart > anyone starting
Jackson = Cashaw
Drone slightly less than Osborne now, > than Meyer
Guercy > Adams, Hunter, Lester

So, having watched a fair number of games with this team, I like the potential of some of the young guys, and I really like how Hunter and Osborne are developing and I like Ako's improvement, but no I don't just accept that Rhoades' 1st team had a less talented starting 5. I will concede that our current bench is likely much better than what Rhoades had considering he only had Peera and Van Green and a platoon, but not the starting 5.

Just having Guercy on this team would have equaled at least 3 wins in my opinion, 3 of the games that got away from us in the final minutes because we didn't have someone with his steady handle. Think of it this way, outside of Mency, Cashaw, and Ako the rest are either true freshmen or might as well be redshirt freshmen for how little time they played last year. Recall that Rhoades' 2nd year had a seemingly much more talented team even with the injuries and they only equaled the same win total as the previous year, and that team had Egor and Evans and more talent than what we currently have.

Mike Rhoades strength as a coach may be working with limited talent. His best success so far was at Randolph-Macon (D3). His best coaching effort at Rice was his first year.

(02-21-2018 06:50 AM)temchugh Wrote:  Mike Rhoades strength as a coach may be working with limited talent. His best success so far was at Randolph-Macon (D3). His best coaching effort at Rice was his first year.

VCU is #157 in Pomeroy right now. SIX teams from C-USA are ranked higher.

VCU hadn't been worse than 150 in KenPom defensive efficiency since he started his website in 2002. They're 182 this year, which is a continuation of his defensive struggles at Rice. I think he'll figure it out and I'm sure VCU fans have a bit of patience, but there have been some serious problems in every game I have watched and fans (on Twitter at least) have expressed some distaste for his in-game coaching on more instance than one.

The VCU discussion board take on Rhoades is about the same as the Parliament take on Pera. It seems to be an even mix of "we might not have made the best choice" and "this is year 1 and he inherited a depleted roster; we need to wait and see".

(02-21-2018 03:05 PM)temchugh Wrote:  The VCU discussion board take on Rhoades is about the same as the Parliament take on Pera. It seems to be an even mix of "we might not have made the best choice" and "this is year 1 and he inherited a depleted roster; we need to wait and see".

Evans will cover a lot of holes for them next year.

(02-21-2018 03:59 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 03:05 PM)temchugh Wrote:  The VCU discussion board take on Rhoades is about the same as the Parliament take on Pera. It seems to be an even mix of "we might not have made the best choice" and "this is year 1 and he inherited a depleted roster; we need to wait and see".

Evans will cover a lot of holes for them next year.

On offense, but Evans is actually a statistically terrible defender (despite his amusing all-conference defensive selection). The guy that'll potentially help them sort things out is actually Corey, who's a really good interior defender which has been a point of concern for VCU.

(02-21-2018 04:23 PM)elw4796 Wrote:  On offense, but Evans is actually a statistically terrible defender (despite his amusing all-conference defensive selection). The guy that'll potentially help them sort things out is actually Corey, who's a really good interior defender which has been a point of concern for VCU.

I don't have a good enough eye to offer any opinions for his time at Rice, but this surprises me. Coming out of high school, Evans had rave reviews for his defense and the real question was what kind of offense he would contribute.

(02-21-2018 04:39 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 04:23 PM)elw4796 Wrote:  On offense, but Evans is actually a statistically terrible defender (despite his amusing all-conference defensive selection). The guy that'll potentially help them sort things out is actually Corey, who's a really good interior defender which has been a point of concern for VCU.

I don't have a good enough eye to offer any opinions for his time at Rice, but this surprises me. Coming out of high school, Evans had rave reviews for his defense and the real question was what kind of offense he would contribute.

People that analyzed Evans fell into the trap of overvaluing steals. In his freshman year he was actually in the bottom 10th percentile of players if you go strictly by how efficiently the player he was defending scored. He got a little better in his sophomore year but was still well below average.

(02-21-2018 05:54 PM)elw4796 Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 04:39 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 04:23 PM)elw4796 Wrote:  On offense, but Evans is actually a statistically terrible defender (despite his amusing all-conference defensive selection). The guy that'll potentially help them sort things out is actually Corey, who's a really good interior defender which has been a point of concern for VCU.

I don't have a good enough eye to offer any opinions for his time at Rice, but this surprises me. Coming out of high school, Evans had rave reviews for his defense and the real question was what kind of offense he would contribute.

People that analyzed Evans fell into the trap of overvaluing steals. In his freshman year he was actually in the bottom 10th percentile of players if you go strictly by how efficiently the player he was defending scored. He got a little better in his sophomore year but was still well below average.

Evans was forced to play out of position because lack of point guards at Rice.
He will not have that problem at VCU. He will for sure will be a shooting guard or small forward.

(02-21-2018 04:23 PM)elw4796 Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 03:59 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 03:05 PM)temchugh Wrote:  The VCU discussion board take on Rhoades is about the same as the Parliament take on Pera. It seems to be an even mix of "we might not have made the best choice" and "this is year 1 and he inherited a depleted roster; we need to wait and see".

Evans will cover a lot of holes for them next year.

On offense, but Evans is actually a statistically terrible defender (despite his amusing all-conference defensive selection). The guy that'll potentially help them sort things out is actually Corey, who's a really good interior defender which has been a point of concern for VCU.

No, I'm pretty sure Evans will be playing PG. In part because his pro future is at PG or as a combo guard, he's got to develop his PG skills.

Also, VCU doesn't have any PG depth. Their starting PG this year is a senior, and when he went down earlier in February with an ankle injury, they had to turn to a shooting guard (that they had been working on giving backup PG minutes) as a starter. Even if they recruit PG for next year, Evans is going to be doing at least some PG duty.