Summer Practice

Donate To GopherHole
T

TNGophfan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
2,188
Reaction score
2,018
Points
113
Do they have any open practices for media or fans during the current sessions?
 

Guessing yes for the media. Next open practivces for fans will be in the Fall.
 


Ok, thanks. Was hoping to hear something from media on how everyone is looking but guess I'm out of luck.
 

TNGophfan said:
Ok, thanks. Was hoping to hear something from media on how everyone is looking but guess I'm out of luck.
Click to expand...
Just apply all coach cliches and you’ll have what the media would have provided this early in the process.
 



I've seen some Tweets from Marcus Fuller (Strib) commenting on how the team looks more athletic and has a lot more size (or length...)

for these type of workouts, you really can't tell much more than that.

as a guy who has sat through more practices than I can count, I think I can say that most practices are pretty freakin' boring unless you are the most hard-core fan of all time.

I covered an NFL training camp for 4 years, and most of the time, the media members were sitting on the sideline complaining about how boring training camp is.
 








couple of nice Ihnen moments on the above video.

the guy looks athletic - that steal and reverse layup was pretty.

even without Fox, I hope the team has enough depth to run the floor a little more or even do more pressure defense. I could see Ihnen being really disruptive on top of a 3/4 court or 1/2 court trap press.
 




Impressive! I like Ben's confidence and coaching presence!
Wish he had more players to develop :)
 

60's Guy said:
Impressive! I like Ben's confidence and coaching presence!
Wish he had more players to develop :)
Click to expand...
I CAN'T tell much or comment on a short Rarrah made video, I'll wait till November.
 


Gopherfan84 said:
He’s got 5 underclassman? You want more to develop? His style will fit well with Dawson as well like it does with Jameson.
Click to expand...
You are an eleven scholarship proponent. We are down to 10. I'm a 13 scholarship guy. (and I'm not talking about giving scholarships to walk-ons who don't have multiple DI offers)
 

60's Guy said:
You are an eleven scholarship proponent. We are down to 10. I'm a 13 scholarship guy. (and I'm not talking about giving scholarships to walk-ons who don't have multiple DI offers)
Click to expand...
You and I are old enough to remember when the NCAA cutting our scholarships by 2 or 3 per year after the Clem scandal was called probation. Now people argue that playing 2 -3 short is a good idea?
 


60's Guy said:
You are an eleven scholarship proponent. We are down to 10. I'm a 13 scholarship guy. (and I'm not talking about giving scholarships to walk-ons who don't have multiple DI offers)
Click to expand...

I'd be happy with 12 (even 11 active scholarship players at this point). People who use the argument that some successful schools have done just fine with fewer scholarship players don't understand why those arguments don't resonate with many of us: we're not those schools and we've been bitten in the ass too many times by having fewer active scholarship players.

Even in Pitino's best year, having too few decent guards killed us after Springs went down in the Big Ten tournament. The next season he took Matz as a sit-out transfer. I liked Matz but he was the kind of player we could have gotten as an immediately eligible grad transfer. Curry was injured before the season and Lynch was suspended indefinitely and that was the end of what could have been for that season.
 

The game as we know it has changed with the ubiquity of transfers. The days of a player sitting on the bench for 2-3 years earning a few minutes per game only to earn minutes as a senior is gone. These players now transfer down to a lower school so they can get some run.

I don't like it one bit but that is now the mindset of student athletes today under as the NCAA as evolved. I need to let go of my 50 year old mindset and imagine how a 20 year old would react today.
 

60's Guy said:
You are an eleven scholarship proponent. We are down to 10. I'm a 13 scholarship guy. (and I'm not talking about giving scholarships to walk-ons who don't have multiple DI offers)
Click to expand...
I’m not a proponent of it. I understand why it’s happening. Of course I’d love to have 13. If 11 and two good walk ons means we have better team chemistry, then I’ll take that over filling the roster to 13 with guys who were lied to and will become cancers when they don’t get what they were promised. My point is having two more guys doesn’t mean he won’t have guys to develop.
 

ecoperson said:
The game as we know it has changed with the ubiquity of transfers. The days of a player sitting on the bench for 2-3 years earning a few minutes per game only to earn minutes as a senior is gone. These players now transfer down to a lower school so they can get some run.

I don't like it one bit but that is now the mindset of student athletes today under as the NCAA as evolved. I need to let go of my 50 year old mindset and imagine how a 20 year old would react today.
Click to expand...
And so? To me that is all the more reason to get 13 scholarship players in and figure out which 8 or 9 are going to get big playing time. If some of your 13, who are not getting playing time, transfer out, what is the problem? Your idea is, we are afraid to lose them, so we don't sign them?

If you have 10 and 2 of those transfer, now you have a problem.

If we have now decided to join the free agent crowd as our strategy, maybe we should have hired Mussy or someone that deals that way. Ben was billed as a program developer and I think he can be good at it. Get the players in here and get them to buy into the bigger long term plan.
 
Last edited:

cjbfbp said:
I'd be happy with 12 (even 11 active scholarship players at this point). People who use the argument that some successful schools have done just fine with fewer scholarship players don't understand why those arguments don't resonate with many of us: we're not those schools and we've been bitten in the ass too many times by having fewer active scholarship players.

Even in Pitino's best year, having too few decent guards killed us after Springs went down in the Big Ten tournament. The next season he took Matz as a sit-out transfer. I liked Matz but he was the kind of player we could have gotten as an immediately eligible grad transfer. Curry was injured before the season and Lynch was suspended indefinitely and that was the end of what could have been for that season.
Click to expand...
The problem now is it’s more than just some successful teams. It’s most teams currently. We used to call it “banking a scholarship” and it was done cause the next class was better. I still think we add a guy this year. Probably won’t be much help on the court unless it’s a guy who reclassifies, but yeah.
 

Gopherfan84 said:
I’m not a proponent of it. I understand why it’s happening. Of course I’d love to have 13. If 11 and two good walk ons means we have better team chemistry, then I’ll take that over filling the roster to 13 with guys who were lied to and will become cancers when they don’t get what they were promised. My point is having two more guys doesn’t mean he won’t have guys to develop.
Click to expand...
I have a hard time believing that #12 and #13 on the depth chart entering the year have been promised much anywhere. There has to be and is a middle ground between walk ons who expect nothing and guys who expect a key roles.

I think roster construction right now is a challenge because we lost everyone when BJ was hired, so I understand we may not be able to recruit transfers to fill the bench without the promise of minutes. Long term, however, there is no excise for not building depth with project players who come in as freshman and earn minutes as a role player in years 3-4. Some will be misses, some will transfer, but some will prove invaluable
 

bc2211 said:
I have a hard time believing that #12 and #13 on the depth chart entering the year have been promised much anywhere. There has to be and is a middle ground between walk ons who expect nothing and guys who expect a key roles.

I think roster construction right now is a challenge because we lost everyone when BJ was hired, so I understand we may not be able to recruit transfers to fill the bench without the promise of minutes. Long term, however, there is no excise for not building depth with project players who come in as freshman and earn minutes as a role player in years 3-4. Some will be misses, some will transfer, but some will prove invaluable
Click to expand...
I think roster management for everyone but the blue bloods is going to be a challenge going forward, look at Wisconsin, they lost a SG to the pro's and a PG and two Forwards to the transfer portal, they have added a PG thru the portal but that is it. If you aren't a blue blood or have big NIL money to give out it is tough.
 

jovs said:
I think roster management for everyone but the blue bloods is going to be a challenge going forward, look at Wisconsin, they lost a SG to the pro's and a PG and two Forwards to the transfer portal, they have added a PG thru the portal but that is it. If you aren't a blue blood or have big NIL money to give out it is tough.
Click to expand...
This. Its going to be hard to fill out at 13 or even 12 with all of the movement, unless coaches are okay taking some more project players that might take time to develop. With that being said, I would prefer we use them but have to be careful not to limit yourself with guys who can't contribute in a meaningful way.
 

jovs said:
I think roster management for everyone but the blue bloods is going to be a challenge going forward, look at Wisconsin, they lost a SG to the pro's and a PG and two Forwards to the transfer portal, they have added a PG thru the portal but that is it. If you aren't a blue blood or have big NIL money to give out it is tough.
Click to expand...

Wisconsin added two transfers I think. One was the freshman point guard (from UW Green Bay I think) and the other was a Wisconsin native who was a good shooter and a teammate of Ryan Larson's at Wofford.
 

Gopherfan84 said:
I still think we add a guy this year.
Click to expand...

I doubt we'll pick up another guard from the transfer portal. Now is not the time to decide to do that. Any good (or even decent) ones left would be very difficult to get.

I didn't do an exhaustive study of the matter but I did go through the portal (alphabetically) about a week ago and looked at about a dozen shooting guards who were listed as uncommitted and not freshmen. None of them showed much of anything at their former schools.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom