Does the CAA Tournament win vindicate Joe's bench strategy?

[cactus]

Splitting this topic off of multiple threads.

Remember when we were told "Starters can't win a CAA tournament championship without a bench?"

Hofstra just won a CAA tournament championship with their bench totaling 2 points, 8 rebounds, 1 assist, 1 steal and 2 blocks -- including zeros across the board in the title game -- over three games in Washington, D.C.

Believe me now?

That was not the argument and the bench played early in all 3 games. Could have used some fresh legs when they couldn't get a single decent look for an entire 6 minutes straight in the second half.

Hardly played at all in all three games, barely contributed much at all. Did the starters, after supposedly having trouble getting a good look for a while, suddenly get fresh legs again after that, at the end of the game? Or, did they just execute and make big shots and winning plays?

vs Drexel:
Trueheart 7:23, Silverio 4:40, Burgess 6:26, Connor 0:16

vs Delaware:
Silverio 4:28, Schutte 1:18, Trueheart 11:22

vs Northeastern:
Trueheart 3:15, Schutte 2:36, Burgess 0:19

Really just Trueheart, barely, in two games, without contributing that much. Outside of that, they basically won 3 in 3 days with the starters.

Not going to argue, I watched the same game and same tournament and same team as you since 2013, glad they were able to overcome the starters basically playing all the minutes all season long, just going to enjoy the win. Will be happy to pick it up again after the ncaas but but not expecting Joe to change either way

I'm ready to move on to argue that winning the CAA tournament does not vindicate Joe's use of the bench.

It's not ideal, no doubt. A deeper team than merely the starting five is always preferable. But when you actually win the championship without a bench, you've already proved it can be effective. Not sure what the debate is anymore on that after cutting the nets, especially when you do so with a big late surge (because you're still not fatigued at that point, playing a third straight day) in the championship game.

[cactus]

I did not want to argue this after the win when you brought it up because it was a great relief after 19 years to enjoy another conference championship and supposed trip to the NCAAs - was definitely traveling wherever they played, too. Didn't want to play Debbie Downer - but Northeastern kind of stunk this year. They lost 16 games, had no size at all, AND were dealing with an injury to a key player in the final thinning their bench. I said before the game, it would be a travesty to lose to a team like that. This has gone from a very strong mid-major league to an average at best one, but all the credit in the world to Joe and staff for the talent he's brought in and kept.

Yet, Hofstra was clearly wearied in the second half, and went over 6 minutes without so much as a decent look. At that point you had to be thinking they were going to lose the game, everyone I was watching with was thinking it. They played great the last 8 minutes after that to close it out, no doubt, and don't want to take anything away from the big shots that Ray and Pemberton hit, and later Buie, because i'll greatly enjoy rewatching that sequence 100's of times in the future...but Northeastern ran out of gas themselves, and moreso. I'm not so sure in the 3rd of 3 games they would have beat a better or deeper team than a shorthanded 16 loss Northeastern squad, simply because that's what history has shown in this tournament since 2013, even when Hofstra has superior talent...and that's where it felt like that second half was going for a while. There's no way in 2016 that they gave two Hofstra all time greats like Buie and JWF enough minutes during the season that they could meaningfully contribute during the final that went into OT where half the team was in foul trouble and Green was shot. Same thing in 2015 when Nesmith barely reached the rim on a key 1-1 late in the game.

Even more so now than then, NONE OF THE OTHER GAMES MATTER except the 3 in the conference tournament, because the league is locked in as a 1 bid league. Joe has got to develop his bench during the season with that in mind. Would be a huge mistake to look at this year's win and continue to ignore giving meaningful minutes to the bench - those minutes speed up their development and make them a potential option to contribute in the conference tournament.

[daHUPride]

I did not want to argue this after the win when you brought it up because it was a great relief after 19 years to enjoy another conference championship and supposed trip to the NCAAs - was definitely traveling wherever they played, too. Didn't want to play Debbie Downer - but Northeastern kind of stunk this year. They lost 16 games, had no size at all, AND were dealing with an injury to a key player in the final thinning their bench. I said before the game, it would be a travesty to lose to a team like that. This has gone from a very strong mid-major league to an average at best one, but all the credit in the world to Joe and staff for the talent he's brought in and kept.

Yet, Hofstra was clearly wearied in the second half, and went over 6 minutes without so much as a decent look. At that point you had to be thinking they were going to lose the game, everyone I was watching with was thinking it. They played great the last 8 minutes after that to close it out, no doubt, and don't want to take anything away from the big shots that Ray and Pemberton hit, and later Buie, because i'll greatly enjoy rewatching that sequence 100's of times in the future...but Northeastern ran out of gas themselves, and moreso. I'm not so sure in the 3rd of 3 games they would have beat a better or deeper team than a shorthanded 16 loss Northeastern squad, simply because that's what history has shown in this tournament since 2013, even when Hofstra has superior talent...and that's where it felt like that second half was going for a while. There's no way in 2016 that they gave two Hofstra all time greats like Buie and JWF enough minutes during the season that they could meaningfully contribute during the final that went into OT where half the team was in foul trouble and Green was shot. Same thing in 2015 when Nesmith barely reached the rim on a key 1-1 late in the game.

Even more so now than then, NONE OF THE OTHER GAMES MATTER except the 3 in the conference tournament, because the league is locked in as a 1 bid league. Joe has got to develop his bench during the season with that in mind. Would be a huge mistake to look at this year's win and continue to ignore giving meaningful minutes to the bench - those minutes speed up their development and make them a potential option to contribute in the conference tournament.

I agree with everything you said CACTUS.
This was special year - with special players - and bottom line we WON!
One thing that worked in our favor - by my memory/not stats - we avoided foul trouble almost the entire season - and the use of Truehart and Schutte was effective - but didn’t feel the same effective of use with Burgess and Silverio.
But - for the record - I am from the school of giving bench more minutes...minutes for the bench to development/grow and the starters to rest/recover.
Well said Cactus.

[Wags]

Northeastern kind of stunk this year. They lost 16 games

Look deeper - five of their nine CAA regular-season losses were by one possession; two others were by two possessions.

I said for weeks here (while I heard often that NU wasn't that good) leading up to the CAA tourney that if they got the 6 seed, they would be in the CAA finals. Sure enough, they were. They managed to handle a Towson team in the semis that Hofstra had no answer for at home not long before that. Brace, Boursiquot, Walker are all good. And, they of course, had the CAA's leading scorer in Roland. Don't go by 16 losses. They were a lot better than you think.

Yet, Hofstra was clearly wearied in the second half, and went over 6 minutes without so much as a decent look. At that point you had to be thinking they were going to lose the game, everyone I was watching with was thinking it. They played great the last 8 minutes after that to close it out, no doubt, and don't want to take anything away from the big shots that Ray and Pemberton hit, and later Buie, because i'll greatly enjoy rewatching that sequence 100's of times in the future...but Northeastern ran out of gas themselves, and moreso. I'm not so sure in the 3rd of 3 games they would have beat a better or deeper team than a shorthanded 16 loss Northeastern squad, simply because that's what history has shown in this tournament since 2013, even when Hofstra has superior talent...and that's where it felt like that second half was going for a while. There's no way in 2016 that they gave two Hofstra all time greats like Buie and JWF enough minutes during the season that they could meaningfully contribute during the final that went into OT where half the team was in foul trouble and Green was shot. Same thing in 2015 when Nesmith barely reached the rim on a key 1-1 late in the game.

So, I'm supposed to believe that Hofstra was wearied (that it wasn't good Northeastern defense and lack of Hofstra's offensive execution) during a second-half scoring drought, yet LATER ON, with a title on the line, they managed to go on a 20-6 run -- playing with a bunch of energy at each end -- to win the game?

That's completely contradictory. Why would they go on a huge, clutch, championship-deciding run AFTER being "wearied" when they should be even MORE tired by that point? Sorry, but that just makes no sense. You don't make the plays they made and the shots Buie made over that stretch later on if you were already too tried to make plays earlier. Not buying that one AT ALL.

Even more so now than then, NONE OF THE OTHER GAMES MATTER except the 3 in the conference tournament, because the league is locked in as a 1 bid league. Joe has got to develop his bench during the season with that in mind. Would be a huge mistake to look at this year's win and continue to ignore giving meaningful minutes to the bench - those minutes speed up their development and make them a potential option to contribute in the conference tournament.

Ideally, you'd love to be about 8 players deep, maybe 9. I never bought the notion that you can't win the CAA tourney without a bench and I find it curious that this is brought up again now, of all times, after Hofstra JUST DID THAT. But now, after seeing it twice (Delaware winning the CAA tourney in 2014 using basically only its bench and Hofstra doing the same using its bench even less than that), I'm definitely not buying it. This is a tired, old argument which has now been proven twice in recent years in the CAA tourney, including most recently, by the team that I heard repeatedly "could never win a CAA tourney that way."

I agree, that doesn't mean it's ideal. Yeah, you'd like to have a bench. But the bench doesn't play for a reason... they're mostly not that good.

[triplec2195]

I for one was quick to discount NE who like u say lost a lot of close games but had been playing well. They gave us all we could handle in this game until the last 5 or so minutes. Both Bolden and Boursiquot kept them in the game with Roland being played tough he only took 11 shots compared to the 22 he took against us in Hempstead. Boursiquot had 4 or 6 points in the other two games against us but really stepped up big in this game. Bolden as well. I've watched the highlights of this game quite a few times and thought our resolve was what carried the day here of course we made big shots. I don't think these guys were gassed and they looked like they could have played some O/T Lol.

[Wags]

I for one was quick to discount NE who like u say lost a lot of close games but had been playing well. They gave us all we could handle in this game until the last 5 or so minutes. Both Bolden and Boursiquot kept them in the game with Roland being played tough he only took 11 shots compared to the 22 he took against us in Hempstead. Boursiquot had 4 or 6 points in the other two games against us but really stepped up big in this game. Bolden as well. I've watched the highlights of this game quite a few times and thought our resolve was what carried the day here of course we made big shots. I don't think these guys were gassed and they looked like they could have played some O/T Lol.

I bet they could have - especially Ray and Buie (easily), the way they played over the final 8 minutes (which is when the 20-6 run started).

[HUSID74]

Agree with Wags. We PROVED that a short bench was not a hindrance to claiming the title. It is also the way we play, particularly on defense with the zone that helps our starters catch their breath and stay out of foul trouble.

Would I like us to have a more dependable bench? Sure, but it did not work out that way. I think the coaches, surely they have been evaluating everyone during these times, are trying to rectify that for next season, by looking at some new pieces to upgrade the team even though right now we are at a full 13 scholarships.

[cactus]

Bottom line - Northeastern is a well coached team but was banged up and out of gas and simply not good enough to take advantage of a wearied Hofstra squad like they did the year prior.

Winning one time against a team like that doesn't "prove" that running effectively no bench is an "effective" strategy.

Considering the first 30 games are meaningless I'd suggest it's rather shortsighted. I hope the staff realizes this going forward and not continue to bury freshmen like they did with JWF and Buie.

[Wags]

Bottom line - Northeastern is a well coached team but was banged up and out of gas and simply not good enough to take advantage of a wearied Hofstra squad like they did the year prior.

I don't see it this way since even if you look at last year's title game... if fatigue is the factor you're assuming, why was it the first half (when Hofstra should've had more energy) that they fell behind by 16, yet the second half (when they should've been more tired) that they were able to make a big push to tie the game from 16 down?

Winning one time against a team like that doesn't "prove" that running no bench is an "effective" strategy.

We weren't talking about winning one game - we were talking about HU putting themselves in the best position possible with no bench (1 seed proved that) and winning the three games in three days with no bench (also proved, especially with a late run to turn a 4-pt deficit into an 11-pt. lead at the very end of the tourney).

Bottom line is you develop a bench if you can. But if you don't have it, you don't have it, and you try to win without it. And they did. So the argument that it can't be done was ended when they cut the nets. You win however you can. Not every team needs a bench to do that.

Considering the first 30 games are meaningless I'd suggest it's rather shortsighted. I hope the staff realizes this going forward and not continue to bury freshmen like they did with JWF and Buie.

I think they know this. But you're assuming there's a JWF or a Buie on that bench right now. Is there?? I also wouldn't say everything before the tourney is meaningless. For Northeastern, they were able to reach the finals as the 6 seed. But that's not always the same for everyone. For Hofstra, I think building confidence and cohesiveness through winning with starters, rather than sacrificing wins to get reserves more minutes, helped them a lot this season. Getting a 1 seed and going through Drexel instead of a more dangerous and hot Elon team (ask W&M) also helped.

[cactus]

Bottom line - Northeastern is a well coached team but was banged up and out of gas and simply not good enough to take advantage of a wearied Hofstra squad like they did the year prior.

I don't see it this way since even if you look at last year's title game... if fatigue is the factor you're assuming, why was it the first half (when Hofstra should've had more energy) that they fell behind by 16, yet the second half (when they should've been more tired) that they were able to make a big push to tie the game from 16 down?

That's a very bad assumption of how fatigue works. Yes you might be a step slow on defense or leave some more shots short, but often it's mental mistakes and loss of focus where fatigue shows up.
Last year they even admitted they ran out of gas after having to spend so much energy to tie the game, because it was so glaringly obvious. It wasn't that they were too tired to play- the fatigue showed up with shot selection and by overhelping on defense and leaving Pusica open to bury open 3 after open 3.

This year's Northeastern team wasn't good enough to take advantage of Hofstra's lack of bench, and with Walker hurt they were shorthanded as it was. In the 2nd half when fatigue was glaring and they were disjointed on offense and couldn't get a good look for 6 minutes, Northeastern only hit 3 buckets during that time. A better/deeper/healthier team might have buried them.

Winning one time against a team like that doesn't "prove" that running no bench is an "effective" strategy.

We weren't talking about winning one game - we were talking about HU putting themselves in the best position possible with no bench (1 seed proved that) and winning the three games in three days with no bench (also proved, especially with a late run to turn a 4-pt deficit into an 11-pt. lead at the very end of the tourney).

The league is not good anymore - Hofstra won on talent and recruiting, not coaching. I do give them credit for finally getting the 2-3 zone into a good place this year, though.

Bottom line is you develop a bench if you can. But if you don't have it, you don't have it, and you try to win without it. And they did. So the argument that it can't be done was ended when they cut the nets. You win however you can. Not every team needs a bench to do that.

Considering the first 30 games are meaningless I'd suggest it's rather shortsighted. I hope the staff realizes this going forward and not continue to bury freshmen like they did with JWF and Buie.

I think they know this. But you're assuming there's a JWF or a Buie on that bench right now. Is there?? I also wouldn't say everything before the tourney is meaningless. For Northeastern, they were able to reach the finals as the 6 seed. But that's not always the same for everyone. For Hofstra, I think building confidence and cohesiveness through winning with starters, rather than sacrificing wins to get reserves more minutes, helped them a lot this season. Getting a 1 seed and going through Drexel instead of a more dangerous and hot Elon team (ask W&M) also helped.

How do we know? We have no idea how good the guys on the bench are because they buried them during meaningless games throughout the entire season. Did you have any idea what JWF was in 2016? The staff didn't know then either. At least they had a remote chance of an at large bid in the league back then to make the excuse that every game was important. There is 0 chance now with the talent that's left the league recently, so only 3 games matter anymore.

[Wags]

How do we know? We have no idea how good the guys on the bench are because they buried them during meaningless games throughout the entire season. Did you have any idea what JWF was in 2016? The staff didn't know then either. At least they had a remote chance of an at large bid in the league back then to make the excuse that every game was important. There is 0 chance now with the talent that's left the league recently, so only 3 games matter anymore.

The coaches see them in practice every day. You really don't think they'd play them more if they thought they could help?

What I've seen so far from the current bench, Schutte looks like the only one with potential. The others, hopefully they grow. But when they were on the floor, I didn't see anything from then to show they deserved more minutes.

What I don't understand is why it's never good enough to just win, even if it's without the bench. Why does it HAVE to be with a bench included? When they cut the nets 16 nights ago, did anyone care that the bench barely contributed at all? Or merely that they were finally conference tourney champs for the first times in 19 years? Bench, no bench, so what? Winning is what matters. The idea that we're STILL even having this same conversation after winning the title seems like a strange concern.

[stuball888]

I was watching to post game of the CAA championship. Wally Sczerbiack mentioned the Ironmen starters for Hofstra as each starter played at least 37 minutes. He praised the contining of these players and the reason for them winning..
He also praised Speedy Claxton and how our guards developed.

[cactus]

How do we know? We have no idea how good the guys on the bench are because they buried them during meaningless games throughout the entire season. Did you have any idea what JWF was in 2016? The staff didn't know then either. At least they had a remote chance of an at large bid in the league back then to make the excuse that every game was important. There is 0 chance now with the talent that's left the league recently, so only 3 games matter anymore.

The coaches see them in practice every day. You really don't think they'd play them more if they thought they could help?

What I've seen so far from the current bench, Schutte looks like the only one with potential. The others, hopefully they grow. But when they were on the floor, I didn't see anything from then to show they deserved more minutes.

What I don't understand is why it's never good enough to just win, even if it's without the bench. Why does it HAVE to be with a bench included? When they cut the nets 16 nights ago, did anyone care that the bench barely contributed at all? Or merely that they were finally conference tourney champs for the first times in 19 years? Bench, no bench, so what? Winning is what matters. The idea that we're STILL even having this same conversation after winning the title seems like a strange concern.

They saw JWF and Buie every day too as freshmen did they not? They were buried on that team.

Winning the title was an amazing moment, but It's actually more important than ever to discuss this at this point, because of what you said in the game thread - basically, they might now feel justified burying freshman and running the starters into the ground. But it's more than likely going to fail if they play a very good team in the conference tournament in the future. And it's a shortsighted thing to do now that the team is locked in to a 1 bid league.

[Wags]

I was watching to post game of the CAA championship. Wally Sczerbiack mentioned the Ironmen starters for Hofstra as each starter played at least 37 minutes. He praised the contining of these players and the reason for them winning..
He also praised Speedy Claxton and how our guards developed.

Wally gets it.

cactus - sorry, but you're just reaching here. They won the regular season and tourney titles with no bench. When you actually do something, it proves you could do it.

They're not the only ones, either. Plenty of teams over many years have won without benches in college basketball. And some teams have won with benches. Doesn't matter how. Just win. They finally win a conference tourney for the first time in 19 years and we can't be happy that they just won? We have to criticize HOW they won, because they didn't use their bench, as if that matters? SMH.

[Polito]

I see 3 simple main huge factors here:

1). This team actually played D. Huge factor.
2). This team held experience of the CAAT champ stage from the previous year. Huge factor.
3). The league was very poor (again) this year. Huge factor.

Has been for years despite some of you who refuse to believe or acknowledge this fact. But this year the competition was really minimal. If we're going to be honest with ourselves, this was a very easy league to win this season. And I said very recently in the last year or two that it feels like the only way JM wins this league is if it's so poor his team is the best by default because he always has top 3 talent IMO (which is awesome by the way). The league weakness would help put it to the top. Half the top talent exited from other squads, and low and behold...


All that said, I want to be clear, I don't a rats rear end lol I'm just thrilled and relieved they finally achieved it! The monkey is off the back - no matter the reason, they deserve ALL the credit and kudos for getting the dang job done!!!

But w/no dance, heck, let's do it AGAIN for good measure

[cactus]

I was watching to post game of the CAA championship. Wally Sczerbiack mentioned the Ironmen starters for Hofstra as each starter played at least 37 minutes. He praised the contining of these players and the reason for them winning..
He also praised Speedy Claxton and how our guards developed.

Wally gets it.

cactus - sorry, but you're just reaching here. They won the regular season and tourney titles with no bench. When you actually do something, it proves you could do it.

They're not the only ones, either. Plenty of teams over many years have won without benches in college basketball. And some teams have won with benches. Doesn't matter how. Just win. They finally win a conference tourney for the first time in 19 years and we can't be happy that they just won? We have to criticize HOW they won, because they didn't use their bench, as if that matters? SMH.

Lol @ the reach accusation looking at this team's history since 2013 when they've had the most talent in the league no less than 3 times. I think you are making the mistake of thinking something is an effective strategy because it worked once against a weak league. And my interest has nothing to do with how they won this year or not enjoying it (I wouldn't even have brought it up if you didn't post about it in the championship game thread, and purposely waited a while to continue the discussion), it's how they should move forward to win again.

[Wags]

I was watching to post game of the CAA championship. Wally Sczerbiack mentioned the Ironmen starters for Hofstra as each starter played at least 37 minutes. He praised the contining of these players and the reason for them winning..
He also praised Speedy Claxton and how our guards developed.

Wally gets it.

cactus - sorry, but you're just reaching here. They won the regular season and tourney titles with no bench. When you actually do something, it proves you could do it.

They're not the only ones, either. Plenty of teams over many years have won without benches in college basketball. And some teams have won with benches. Doesn't matter how. Just win. They finally win a conference tourney for the first time in 19 years and we can't be happy that they just won? We have to criticize HOW they won, because they didn't use their bench, as if that matters? SMH.

Lol @ the reach accusation looking at this team's history since 2013 when they've had the most talent in the league no less than 3 times. I think you are making the mistake of thinking something is an effective strategy because it worked once against a weak league. And my interest has nothing to do with how they won this year or not enjoying it (I wouldn't even have brought it up if you didn't post about it in the championship game thread, and purposely waited a while to continue the discussion), it's how they should move forward to win again.

I don't agree that they had more talent and "should" have won before this year. They had the most talent this year. In 2016, it was splitting hairs talent-wise between them and UNCW. Last year, they had the best player, but team-wide talent? Northeastern was just as good if not better. They did lose to 2 seeds in 2016 and 2019, so it's not like they were playing teams they should've easily beaten or beaten at all. 1 vs 2 in title games are basically up for grabs. And even this year, with Northeastern as a 6 seed, Hofstra was only a 1-point favorite.

As for how they should move forward, I'm fine with playing the best players depending on the situation rather than forcing guys onto the floor who don't belong there just for the sake of playing them. If that means going 8-9 deep, great. If that means relying basically on five starters, great. Just win.

[EvanJ]

I was watching to post game of the CAA championship. Wally Sczerbiack mentioned the Ironmen starters for Hofstra as each starter played at least 37 minutes. He praised the contining of these players and the reason for them winning..
He also praised Speedy Claxton and how our guards developed.

Wally gets it.

cactus - sorry, but you're just reaching here. They won the regular season and tourney titles with no bench. When you actually do something, it proves you could do it.

They're not the only ones, either. Plenty of teams over many years have won without benches in college basketball. And some teams have won with benches. Doesn't matter how. Just win. They finally win a conference tourney for the first time in 19 years and we can't be happy that they just won? We have to criticize HOW they won, because they didn't use their bench, as if that matters? SMH.

Lol @ the reach accusation looking at this team's history since 2013 when they've had the most talent in the league no less than 3 times. I think you are making the mistake of thinking something is an effective strategy because it worked once against a weak league. And my interest has nothing to do with how they won this year or not enjoying it (I wouldn't even have brought it up if you didn't post about it in the championship game thread, and purposely waited a while to continue the discussion), it's how they should move forward to win again.

I'm happy we won. I'm not any less happy because we rarely used the bench, but it does make me worried about next season. We're rarely going to have our fifth best starter as good as this season. It's possible to win the CAAT while hardly using your bench, but that doesn't mean it's likely, and it doesn't mean next season's starters will be able to do it if we were the 1 seed. When I complained about not using the bench enough, nobody knew we would win the CAAT, and it was worth it to win the CAAT even if our bench is worse next season than if they had played more this season.

I don't agree that they had more talent and "should" have won before this year. They had the most talent this year. In 2016, it was splitting hairs talent-wise between them and UNCW. Last year, they had the best player, but team-wide talent? Northeastern was just as good if not better. They did lose to 2 seeds in 2016 and 2019, so it's not like they were playing teams they should've easily beaten or beaten at all. 1 vs 2 in title games are basically up for grabs. And even this year, with Northeastern as a 6 seed, Hofstra was only a 1-point favorite.

Even if you call 2016 and 2019 as 50-50, there was only a 25 percent chance that we would lose both Finals. One CAAT doesn't prove it's a good strategy. In 2009, the Yankees won the World Series while using only three starters and sometimes some of them had to pitch on three days rest. That didn't prove that only starting three pitchers is a good strategy in general. The Yankees won 16, 6, and 10 more regular season games than their playoff opponents, and the Yankees had a winning percentage of .580 in 88 games before the All-Star Game and .703 in 74 games after the All-Star game, so they were doing well going into the playoffs.

[triplec2195]

[quote="Polito"]I see 3 simple main huge factors here:

1). This team actually played D. Huge factor.
2). This team held experience of the CAAT champ stage from the previous year. Huge factor.
3). The league was very poor (again) this year. Huge factor.

Has been for years despite some of you who refuse to believe or acknowledge this fact. But this year the competition was really minimal. If we're going to be honest with ourselves, this was a very easy league to win this season. And I said very recently in the last year or two that it feels like the only way JM wins this league is if it's so poor his team is the best by default because he always has top 3 talent IMO (which is awesome by the way). The league weakness would help put it to the top. Half the top talent exited from other squads, and low and behold...


All that said, I want to be clear, I don't a rats rear end lol I'm just thrilled and relieved they finally achieved it! The monkey is off the back - no matter the reason, they deserve ALL the credit and kudos for getting the dang job done!!!

Polito just taking exception to ("this was a very easy league to win this season") I'll agree that this league wasn't as good as in years past and most people will agree but lets be clear winning the CAA is never an easy thing to do especially winning 3 games in 3 days. This is just overstating and distorting the reality here IMO. I've watched most games this year and its true we had blown out Elon a few times but most games were competitive and even a team like Towson gave us trouble. Don't necessarily think any games were gimmes in this league.

[Polito]

-->>

despite some of you who refuse to believe or acknowledge this fact

<--

lol, c'mon tc

Look it's easy to confuse parity with quality. Two VERY diff things. Just because HU has had a hard time, doesn't mean the league is strong. The CAA is a shell of it's former self. And this was one of the weakest seasons since HU joined due to the talent exit.

Many other leagues have the same setup, win 3 or 4 in a row to win it all. Not a good excuse for me. It just means you need a strategy for it. And as JM has learned the hard way, taking all of us with him, is that laughing off Defense isn't the one that works. Still doesn't develop any depth, but to me the bigger factor is proper D considering their starter talent is typically top 3 easy. And they did it right this season, and lo and behold won.

The hard truth is this league is relatively weak now, no matter how hard JM tries to sell it (PS at least he tries, unlike the useless commissioner). Removing glasses, it's one of the top reasons HU won and JM's approach finally worked.


wags, cactus, both have some very fair points here. I'm not looking to get in the middle, but I'll just say to wags, disagree 100% that this program shouldn't have won before this year. And you have said it yourself before too. This program has fully choked at least 2, likely 3 times. It is inexcusable that this team has not gone dancing before this year. Talent wasn't the issue (overall) IMO, they just failed.

Doesn't take away this years awesomeness one bit IMO by the way - I'm on cloud 9! But to act like they shouldn't have won before is silly to me.

Again, just because HU in particular has struggled to get over the hump doesn't necessarily mean they didn't have the talent. They've just dropped the ball until now. We know as sports fans plenty of sports teams across the world fail despite their talent. It's literally the definition of 'choking', and HU has done their fair share unfortunately for us all!