Questions for Donahue

[Bryn Mawr Eagle]

Steve Donahue is speaking to the Philly BC Alumni on Monday, April 30. I plan to attend. If you like, please propose some questions you want answered.

[twballgame9]

Do defense and rebounding play any role in your offensive scheme?

[eepstein0]

Do defense and rebounding play any role in your offensive scheme?

[DavidGordonsFoot]

If we can't be Harvard during the week and Alabama on Saturday, can we be Harvard during the week and Harvard on Selection Sunday?

[Bryn Mawr Eagle]

In light of the other thread where so many posters demanded that he be fired, I'll ask him what it's like to be on the hot seat so early in his tenure at BC.

[bcmurph]

Steve Donahue is speaking to the Philly BC Alumni on Monday, April 30. I plan to attend. If you like, please propose some questions you want answered.

How concerned are you with the apparent lack of depth on the front line?

Oh and...

How does Heslip's ass taste?

[claver2010]

Agreed with Murph, a question about the lack of depth of 4s and 5s is definitely a fair question.

Frame it in the sense that we got out rebounded by a shitton, brought in more guards, etc.

He'll probably say that Anderson & Clifford are bulking up, Caudill is improving, etc but that's 3 total players for 2 positions.

[HJS]

Ask him how much money Gene saved by substituting Joe Jones with a backfill hire of Woody Kampmann?

[eagle9903]

Ask him how much money Gene saved by substituting Joe Jones with a backfill hire of Woody Kampmann?

I'm actually curious about what kind of difference this would be. I have no idea how much basketball assistants make.

[RedBaron67]

The situation with bigs and rebounding is definitely a question that should be asked; so is the assistant coach situation, but it might be tricky to phrase the question in a way that won't also be an insult.

[pick6pedro]

Steve, please describe the brand and style of easy chair in your living room.
Do the disciples ever betray you?

[bcmurph]

Steve Donahue is speaking to the Philly BC Alumni on Monday, April 30. I plan to attend. If you like, please propose some questions you want answered.

Just wondering if you made it and what he had to say...

[eepstein0]

I can see BC being shaped like the Villanova teams of a few years ago who ran a 3 guard offense (Daniels, Hanlan & Jackson), had a stretch 4 (Anderson) and a decent Center inside (Clifford). As I recall they used to get killed on rebounds but won a lot of games.

[bignick33]

As I recall they used to get killed on rebounds but won a lot of games.

I'm not so sure of this.

[twballgame9]

As I recall they used to get killed on rebounds but won a lot of games.

I'm not so sure of this.

The three guard offenses at Nova got positively destroyed on the boards. Sumpter gunned threes and Jason Fraser was Nova's Josh Southern.

[bignick33]

As I recall they used to get killed on rebounds but won a lot of games.

I'm not so sure of this.

The three guard offenses at Nova got positively destroyed on the boards. Sumpter gunned threes and Jason Fraser was Nova's Josh Southern.

Their rebounding margin (compiled using statsheet.com) was as follows:

2003-2004: +2.9
2004-2005: +4.1
2005-2006: +0.9
2006-2007: +4.5
2007-2008: +2.6
2008-2009: +4.9

[eepstein0]

As I recall they used to get killed on rebounds but won a lot of games.

I'm not so sure of this.

The three guard offenses at Nova got positively destroyed on the boards. Sumpter gunned threes and Jason Fraser was Nova's Josh Southern.

Their rebounding margin (compiled using statsheet.com) was as follows:

2003-2004: +2.9
2004-2005: +4.1
2005-2006: +0.9
2006-2007: +4.5
2007-2008: +2.6
2008-2009: +4.9

I'd be interested to see the in-conference numbers. My hypothesis may still be wrong, but I bet those numbers are stacked due to OOC play.

[bignick33]

As I recall they used to get killed on rebounds but won a lot of games.

I'm not so sure of this.

The three guard offenses at Nova got positively destroyed on the boards. Sumpter gunned threes and Jason Fraser was Nova's Josh Southern.

Their rebounding margin (compiled using statsheet.com) was as follows:

2003-2004: +2.9
2004-2005: +4.1
2005-2006: +0.9
2006-2007: +4.5
2007-2008: +2.6
2008-2009: +4.9

I'd be interested to see the in-conference numbers. My hypothesis may still be wrong, but I bet those numbers are stacked due to OOC play.

I likewise suspect that their rebounding numbers against good teams is worse than their rebounding numbers against bad teams. Common sense, no? That being said...you do realize that they play the majority of their games in the conference (the best basketball conference in the country over that span)? You weren't as specifically inaccurate as teddy, but "killed on rebounds" is patently false.

Regardless, we'd all take that record of success rebounding margin be damned, which you sort of allude to in the second part of your post.

P and S: Go compile the fucking stats yourself if you think mine are misleading.

[twballgame9]

The stat itself is misleading. Curtis Sumpter played power forward and spent a majority of his time 6 area codes from the paint. On the other hand, the guards for Nova were pretty strong rebounders. And the team as a whole chucked from long distance, with the bench guys being Lowry and the little white dude, so I bet a ton of their boards were long rebounds.

That Nova team was a horrid rebounding team, misleading stats notwithstanding.

[bignick33]

The stat itself is misleading. Curtis Sumpter played power forward and spent a majority of his time 6 area codes from the paint. On the other hand, the guards for Nova were pretty strong rebounders. And the team as a whole chucked from long distance, with the bench guys being Lowry and the little white dude, so I bet a ton of their boards were long rebounds.

That Nova team was a horrid rebounding team, misleading stats notwithstanding.

Your "Rebounds is a misleading measure of rebounding" argument is positively retarded. What do you suggest...RORP?

[eepstein0]

The stat itself is misleading. Curtis Sumpter played power forward and spent a majority of his time 6 area codes from the paint. On the other hand, the guards for Nova were pretty strong rebounders. And the team as a whole chucked from long distance, with the bench guys being Lowry and the little white dude, so I bet a ton of their boards were long rebounds.

That Nova team was a horrid rebounding team, misleading stats notwithstanding.

Your "Rebounds is a misleading measure of rebounding" argument is positively retarded. What do you suggest...RORP?

It's VORP, not RORP...

[bignick33]

The stat itself is misleading. Curtis Sumpter played power forward and spent a majority of his time 6 area codes from the paint. On the other hand, the guards for Nova were pretty strong rebounders. And the team as a whole chucked from long distance, with the bench guys being Lowry and the little white dude, so I bet a ton of their boards were long rebounds.

That Nova team was a horrid rebounding team, misleading stats notwithstanding.

Your "Rebounds is a misleading measure of rebounding" argument is positively retarded. What do you suggest...RORP?

It's VORP, not RORP...

[twballgame9]

The stat itself is misleading. Curtis Sumpter played power forward and spent a majority of his time 6 area codes from the paint. On the other hand, the guards for Nova were pretty strong rebounders. And the team as a whole chucked from long distance, with the bench guys being Lowry and the little white dude, so I bet a ton of their boards were long rebounds.

That Nova team was a horrid rebounding team, misleading stats notwithstanding.

Your "Rebounds is a misleading measure of rebounding" argument is positively retarded. What do you suggest...RORP?

I don't. Reading stats instead of watching games is positively retarded. Nova got killed on the backboards. Their leading rebounder was Sumpter and he never averaged more than 7, and was a perimeter player, chucking 38, 66, 90 and a positively astounding 142 threes in his 4 seasons. The center, Fraser, averaged 7 boards a game in only one season. The best season they had rebounding from a big was when Cunningham was a senior.

Fact is that 3 point shooting teams create a ton of long offensive rebounds that skew rebounding stats to make them look like better rebounders than they are. Villanova has historically been a piss poor defensive rebounding team, yet balances it with offensive rebounding, usually from the guards.

For example, the really good team in 2005-06 had a leading rebounder with 6.3 rpg (Cunningham) and a guard (Foye) with 5.6 rpg. Their piss poor rebounding was reflected in the fact that the team was 59th in offensive boards but 282 in the country in defensive boards. Given their style of play, this is an indication that a large bulk of their boards were on long rebounds on the offensive end and that they were piss poor inside on the boards.

A quick pan through 4-5 seasons in the early to mid 2000s reveals that Nova was consistently between 40-90 in offensive boards, but in the 190-250 range in defensive boards. That's a piss poor rebounding team.

[bignick33]

The stat itself is misleading. Curtis Sumpter played power forward and spent a majority of his time 6 area codes from the paint. On the other hand, the guards for Nova were pretty strong rebounders. And the team as a whole chucked from long distance, with the bench guys being Lowry and the little white dude, so I bet a ton of their boards were long rebounds.

That Nova team was a horrid rebounding team, misleading stats notwithstanding.

Your "Rebounds is a misleading measure of rebounding" argument is positively retarded. What do you suggest...RORP?

I don't. Reading stats instead of watching games is positively retarded. Nova got killed on the backboards. Their leading rebounder was Sumpter and he never averaged more than 7, and was a perimeter player, chucking 38, 66, 90 and a positively astounding 142 threes in his 4 seasons. The center, Fraser, averaged 7 boards a game in only one season. The best season they had rebounding from a big was when Cunningham was a senior.

Fact is that 3 point shooting teams create a ton of long offensive rebounds that skew rebounding stats to make them look like better rebounders than they are. Villanova has historically been a piss poor defensive rebounding team, yet balances it with offensive rebounding, usually from the guards.

For example, the really good team in 2005-06 had a leading rebounder with 6.3 rpg (Cunningham) and a guard (Foye) with 5.6 rpg. Their piss poor rebounding was reflected in the fact that the team was 59th in offensive boards but 282 in the country in defensive boards. Given their style of play, this is an indication that a large bulk of their boards were on long rebounds on the offensive end and that they were piss poor inside on the boards.

A quick pan through 4-5 seasons in the early to mid 2000s reveals that Nova was consistently between 40-90 in offensive boards, but in the 190-250 range in defensive boards. That's a piss poor rebounding team.

None of any of this makes " Nova got positively destroyed on the boards" any less false. If your statement weren't pulled directly from your cavernous ass, they wouldn't have outrebounded their opposition every single year.

[bignick33]

By the way, the effort was admirable, despite ultimately requiring a straw man. I mean that sincerely.

[apbc12]

Too bad this event was last night. You could've asked if he had a bench spot for Montel.

[twballgame9]

The stat itself is misleading. Curtis Sumpter played power forward and spent a majority of his time 6 area codes from the paint. On the other hand, the guards for Nova were pretty strong rebounders. And the team as a whole chucked from long distance, with the bench guys being Lowry and the little white dude, so I bet a ton of their boards were long rebounds.

That Nova team was a horrid rebounding team, misleading stats notwithstanding.

Your "Rebounds is a misleading measure of rebounding" argument is positively retarded. What do you suggest...RORP?

I don't. Reading stats instead of watching games is positively retarded. Nova got killed on the backboards. Their leading rebounder was Sumpter and he never averaged more than 7, and was a perimeter player, chucking 38, 66, 90 and a positively astounding 142 threes in his 4 seasons. The center, Fraser, averaged 7 boards a game in only one season. The best season they had rebounding from a big was when Cunningham was a senior.

Fact is that 3 point shooting teams create a ton of long offensive rebounds that skew rebounding stats to make them look like better rebounders than they are. Villanova has historically been a piss poor defensive rebounding team, yet balances it with offensive rebounding, usually from the guards.

For example, the really good team in 2005-06 had a leading rebounder with 6.3 rpg (Cunningham) and a guard (Foye) with 5.6 rpg. Their piss poor rebounding was reflected in the fact that the team was 59th in offensive boards but 282 in the country in defensive boards. Given their style of play, this is an indication that a large bulk of their boards were on long rebounds on the offensive end and that they were piss poor inside on the boards.

A quick pan through 4-5 seasons in the early to mid 2000s reveals that Nova was consistently between 40-90 in offensive boards, but in the 190-250 range in defensive boards. That's a piss poor rebounding team.

None of any of this makes " Nova got positively destroyed on the boards" any less false. If your statement weren't pulled directly from your cavernous ass, they wouldn't have outrebounded their opposition every single year.

Umm, actually, that's exactly what it means. Your PF and C playing 65 minutes a game and averaging 13 boards is getting killed on the boards. Scooping up offensive boards 15 feet from the basket because your team chucks 25 shots a game from 20+ feet does not change the fact that you got killed inside to the tune of being 282 in the country in defensive rebounding, on the boards.

[Bryn Mawr Eagle]

Steve Donahue is speaking to the Philly BC Alumni on Monday, April 30. I plan to attend. If you like, please propose some questions you want answered.

Just wondering if you made it and what he had to say...

Unfortunately I had to leave before the Q&A - they had a local bishop and a member of the BOT there as well and they spoke first, which took far longer than I had hoped.

I did get to meet him just before his speech though. Let's see, what did he say? Oh yeah, Danny Rubin will start next year.

Just kidding. His speech had nothing earth-shattering. Said he absolutely loves being BC's basketball coach and is thrilled every day he drives onto campus. He talked up his local ties (he is from the Philly burbs), but noted how parochial the Phila. high school basketball scene is, and that while there is lots of good talent, recruting here is hard and it is tough to get kids to come up to Boston to play - they'd rather go to local colleges to play in front of their friends/families. (This was somewhat disappointing to me - I would expect a guy who was raised in this area and who had coached here for so much of his career would be able to confidently talk up his local connections and network, and how he hoped to make Philly a more fertile recruiting ground in the years ahead). But at the same time he said he plans to play a game in Philadelphia every other year - with St. Joe's and Villanova being the primary candidates for successive home and away series - so that should help. This was well-received by the attendees, since we've been trying to get Gene D. to schedule a Philadelphia-area game in either basketball or football for some time. Says he does not want to play Temple. They beat him 14 straight times when he was at Cornell, and he jokingly said Fran Dunphy (who he used to work for) basically has his number. Said his most important criteria when comparing simillarly-skilled recruits is smarts - not because of admissions issues (he said the idea that BC has to deal with "higher admissions standards" is largely a myth) but becuase smart kids will not struggle in class and thus will have more time to be in the gym practicing. If they are struggling, then they have to spend so much time with the academic support tutors that it cuts into practice time and hurts the unit's cohesiveness. Unfortunately that was about it when I had to leave. It was a talk clearly directed toward Philly alumni, and was not too heavy on technical basketball issues or other Athletic Department issues. No mention of Gene D at all. Sorry I was not able to get more.

[eepstein0]

I'd like a home-and-home with a Philly school.

[eagle9903]

Steve Donahue is speaking to the Philly BC Alumni on Monday, April 30. I plan to attend. If you like, please propose some questions you want answered.

Just wondering if you made it and what he had to say...

Unfortunately I had to leave before the Q&A - they had a local bishop and a member of the BOT there as well and they spoke first, which took far longer than I had hoped.

I did get to meet him just before his speech though. Let's see, what did he say? Oh yeah, Danny Rubin will start next year.

Just kidding. His speech had nothing earth-shattering. Said he absolutely loves being BC's basketball coach and is thrilled every day he drives onto campus. He talked up his local ties (he is from the Philly burbs), but noted how parochial the Phila. high school basketball scene is, and that while there is lots of good talent, recruting here is hard and it is tough to get kids to come up to Boston to play - they'd rather go to local colleges to play in front of their friends/families. (This was somewhat disappointing to me - I would expect a guy who was raised in this area and who had coached here for so much of his career would be able to confidently talk up his local connections and network, and how he hoped to make Philly a more fertile recruiting ground in the years ahead). But at the same time he said he plans to play a game in Philadelphia every other year - with St. Joe's and Villanova being the primary candidates for successive home and away series - so that should help. This was well-received by the attendees, since we've been trying to get Gene D. to schedule a Philadelphia-area game in either basketball or football for some time. Says he does not want to play Temple. They beat him 14 straight times when he was at Cornell, and he jokingly said Fran Dunphy (who he used to work for) basically has his number. Said his most important criteria when comparing simillarly-skilled recruits is smarts - not because of admissions issues (he said the idea that BC has to deal with "higher admissions standards" is largely a myth) but becuase smart kids will not struggle in class and thus will have more time to be in the gym practicing. If they are struggling, then they have to spend so much time with the academic support tutors that it cuts into practice time and hurts the unit's cohesiveness. Unfortunately that was about it when I had to leave. It was a talk clearly directed toward Philly alumni, and was not too heavy on technical basketball issues or other Athletic Department issues. No mention of Gene D at all. Sorry I was not able to get more.

I'm not surprised that Philly Catholic league kids aren't chomping at the bit to go to BC unfortunately. I could be wrong, but I've always been under the impression most top Neuman and Roman basketball players go to those schools a) because they have good coaches and exposure and b) its safer and provides an education opportunity not available at their local public schools and not because they are catholic or like catholic school particularly. I think Don has to win something first and then it becomes a lot more likely.