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

[Wags]

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!

Whoa, wait a minute... I have said they choked? CHOKED? You're gonna have to prove that one.

I've never thought that. I said they had the talent to win in the past, but talent alone doesn't win. If it did, the most talented team would win every sport, every year, and we know that's not even remotely the case. You have to execute. I've said they failed to execute, but I don't believe I ever said that they choked or SHOULD have won going into the tournament. At most, I said they should've held onto the lead in 2016 and that Juan'ya severely cost them the chance to do that, going 2/16 and missing late at the line (nothing against him, great player, great career, just not that night). But I never said they SHOULD win going in. Talent and the 1 seed merely gives you a good chance. But you don't play on paper, you play on the floor. I said they had great chances to win that year and last year. How could you not have a great chance to win when you're the top seed, like they were in 2016 and 2019? But that guaranteed nothing, especially when you're playing a 2 seed with good talent of their own in each of those games.

And, you said likely 3 times? What would be the third time? I don't think you can count 2007, especially after Stokes got punched, and I don't think you can count 2015, which was extremely close, but they were also a 5 seed, trying to beat a 1.

Big difference between COULD have won and SHOULD have won. Absolutely COULD have won a few times, including 2007 and 2015. I'm on board there. SHOULD, or CHOKED, is when you're a heavy favorite and don't show up. They'd never been in that position in the CAA tourney, even this year, at a 1 seed facing a 6 in the finals (hence the 1-pt favorite they were in that one).

[Flying Dutchmen]

This year put it in true perspective for me. This was the first year we had the most talent in the CAA, and we won it. We didn't have more talent in '16 or '19, maybe in '16 if Malik doesn't tear his ACL.

I'll always believe we're walking a tightrope being all offense/no bench. I think it's kind of gimmicky, and over-reliant on players staying healthy. But the track record shows that we slightly overperform in conference play, and play to our talent in the CAAT.

I agree with Polito that 2020 was a weak rendition of the CAA. I thought the bottom stepped up a little, but Northeastern fell off due to Murphy's injury and Occeus going pro. W&M was still good with Knight, but they came back to earth in the second half of the season and couldn't overcome their guard deficiencies in the tournament. It turned out the league was always ours to win.

The way I see it is Joe's style is good enough to win it when we are the most talented team, and he recruits well enough to have the most talent. He's done an amazing job bringing in high character people too, it's never been a question. Character is why we won this year, and I don't think we as fans take that for granted.

I think that's why there was so much joy on that court in DC when Joe cut down the net, the win vindicated a person who has been great for Hofstra.

[Wags]

This year put it in true perspective for me. This was the first year we had the most talent in the CAA, and we won it. We didn't have more talent in '16 or '19, maybe in '16 if Malik doesn't tear his ACL.

This is something people forget. I think they win the title if he remained healthy. He was huge as a 6th man that season before he got hurt. That can cause a ripple effect through your whole rotation and you have to adjust on the fly. That they still got the 1 seed and to OT in the title game without him, was a pretty good accomplishment, even though they didn't achieve the ultimate that year.

[Wags]

Character is why we won this year, and I don't think we as fans take that for granted.

Definitely. They showed that all year long and its why they didn't miss another chance in this year's title game.

They start with the inexplicable loss to San Jose State, they rebound with a 20-point over Monmouth.
They lose at Bucknell by 15, two games later they win at UCLA.
They lose by 28 at St. Bonaventure, they win their next five.
They lose by 27 at home to W&M, they beat Elon the next game by 27 and later, pay W&M back with a 23-point win at their place.
They lose consecutive 2-point games (at Charleston and vs. Delaware), they win their next eight.
They have a bad offensive half and let Drexel hang around at the half in the CAA tourney, they come out strong and blow them out in the second half.
They trail by 4 in the CAA title game with 8 minutes left, they go on a 20-6 run to win the title.

You can't do all that without character.

And I think as you were alluding to, not just character on the floor, but a good bunch of guys - Coburn, a Scholar-Athlete of the Year, Buie a 4.0 GPA, Pemberton, Ray, even the guys on the bench who didn't play much, down to Conner, all great guys, and the staff, too. Certainly, the same in some past years too - which is why it's a shame JWF and many others of of high character at HU didn't cut the nets, but that's also why Mihalich and this year's players were emotional about not only winning for themselves, but for those who played at HU beore them... because of character. That's a long way from that one brief time when character was lacking in the 7-25 season with all of those arrests. Win or lose, HU fans should be proud of that. But that along with cutting the nets is great!

[cactus]

This year put it in true perspective for me. This was the first year we had the most talent in the CAA, and we won it. We didn't have more talent in '16 or '19, maybe in '16 if Malik doesn't tear his ACL.

This is something people forget. I think they win the title if he remained healthy. He was huge as a 6th man that season before he got hurt. That can cause a ripple effect through your whole rotation and you have to adjust on the fly. That they still got the 1 seed and to OT in the title game without him, was a pretty good accomplishment, even though they didn't achieve the ultimate that year.

Who forgot about Nichols getting hurt?

[Wags]

This year put it in true perspective for me. This was the first year we had the most talent in the CAA, and we won it. We didn't have more talent in '16 or '19, maybe in '16 if Malik doesn't tear his ACL.

This is something people forget. I think they win the title if he remained healthy. He was huge as a 6th man that season before he got hurt. That can cause a ripple effect through your whole rotation and you have to adjust on the fly. That they still got the 1 seed and to OT in the title game without him, was a pretty good accomplishment, even though they didn't achieve the ultimate that year.

Who forgot about Nichols getting hurt?

In terms of when people say Hofstra should have won the title that year, it's not mentioned much. I think they would've won with him.

[cactus]

Who forgot about Nichols getting hurt?

In terms of when people say Hofstra should have won the title that year, it's not mentioned much. I think they would've won with him.

Possibly, but they also had a 12 point lead in the 2nd half in the final.

[Wags]

Who forgot about Nichols getting hurt?

In terms of when people say Hofstra should have won the title that year, it's not mentioned much. I think they would've won with him.

Possibly, but they also had a 12 point lead in the 2nd half in the final.

Might've been more and might've held onto it with Nichols.

[Polito]

Easy Wags, apologies, it reads differently than intended - did not mean that you've said they 'choked' - I said they choked - because they DID.

I think it's ok for us to acknowledge that and still be ecstatic with this year - they're not exclusive. When you are the top dog w/POY talent and you fail to get the job done, you choked. PERIOD. You / others can not like that word all you want, doesn't change the fact. That's what it is. And it's a fact for ANY team in ANY sport at ANY level when that happens. I'm not hating on them, I just have the ability to handle both ends of the spectrum.

What you have said before is that they probably should've won, or that it was fair to call that, or something to that effect. And that's correct.

We need to stop acting like they 'shouldn't' have won just because they didn't. No, if they didn't then they clearly weren't 'meant' to, but they still should have.

They blew it w/Green '16 and blew it w/JWF '19. That's 2 minimum under this staff. TP blew it with his best team as well in '06. ALL 3 had POY. I and nearly every person here who witnessed it agree with you that the Nichols loss was huge and likely lead to their demise. But HU has had more POY than any other active program in the CAA. A staggering *6*, and it should've been 7 w/Buie. Yup, you're expected to win. With excellence comes expectations, and life doesn't care whether it's 'fair' or not.

And so I don't care what the excuses are, valid or not, it's just a fact they didn't get the job done and should have. And if they would've blown this one in '20 it would've been the worst choke job to date - and they were dangerously close to it playing a terrible game for about 30 of the 40 minutes.

Thankfully they FINALLY slayed the dragon. And despite the above, I remain thrilled

[Wags]

Easy Wags, apologies, it reads differently than intended - did not mean that you've said they 'choked' - I said they choked - because they DID.

I think it's ok for us to acknowledge that and still be ecstatic with this year - they're not exclusive. When you are the top dog w/POY talent and you fail to get the job done, you choked. PERIOD. You / others can not like that word all you want, doesn't change the fact. That's what it is. And it's a fact for ANY team in ANY sport at ANY level when that happens. I'm not hating on them, I just have the ability to handle both ends of the spectrum.

What you have said before is that they probably should've won, or that it was fair to call that, or something to that effect. And that's correct.

We need to stop acting like they 'shouldn't' have won just because they didn't. No, if they didn't then they clearly weren't 'meant' to, but they still should have.

They blew it w/Green '16 and blew it w/JWF '19. That's 2 minimum under this staff. TP blew it with his best team as well in '06. ALL 3 had POY. I and nearly every person here who witnessed it agree with you that the Nichols loss was huge and likely lead to their demise. But HU has had more POY than any other active program in the CAA. A staggering *6*, and it should've been 7 w/Buie. Yup, you're expected to win. With excellence comes expectations, and life doesn't care whether it's 'fair' or not.

And so I don't care what the excuses are, valid or not, it's just a fact they didn't get the job done and should have. And if they would've blown this one in '20 it would've been the worst choke job to date - and they were dangerously close to it playing a terrible game for about 30 of the 40 minutes.

Thankfully they FINALLY slayed the dragon. And despite the above, I remain thrilled

I hear ya. So, a little CAA history - now 38 seasons including HU's win:

1 seed has won 21 times
2 seed has won 10 times
3 seed has won 4 times
4 seed has won 2 times
7 seed has won 1 time

So yeah, like many leagues, the 1 seed usually wins in the CAA, but it's far from a guarantee.

Overall, the 1 seed has only won a little more than half of the time (55%), while seeds lower than 1 have won 45% of the time (17 in 38 tournaments). So, like I said, when you're the 1 seed (especially against a good 2 seed, like they were in 2016 and 2019), it's only a little better than a 50/50 crapshoot in your favor.

Even looking at just the top two seeds, the 2 seeds have won about half the time 1 seeds have won. By the same odds, you can fairly say Hofstra, as the 1 seed three times, should've won twice, but not all three. You can point to 2016, up 12 in the second half, as the one they shouldn't have let get away, but I wouldn't say the same about last year, which fits with the breakdown of how 1 seeds and 2 seeds have fared in the history of the tournament.

2006 isn't fair to say they should've won. They were a 3 seed and pulled off an upset against team that went to the Final Four and then had to come back and play a top-seeded UNCW team that was better than them one night after Stokes got punched by Skinn.

Takes more than just the POY. You can have that and your opponent can still be more balanced overall. If we're going to say "choked" and "should have" won, I think 2016 is the only won that's up fairly for debate. But even that one, UNCW was definitely no slouch and it was no surprise they made the run they did to get that game to OT and win it (especially with 15 1/2 minutes still left the last time HU was up by 12 in that one). The others (2006, 2015, 2019), they had good chances, but I don't think they should have won.

[HUSID74]

If Nichols was healthy we win that game without Green at his best to put it mildly. Remember though that Tanksley had a great game that night.

[Wags]

If Nichols was healthy we win that game without Green at his best to put it mildly. Remember though that Tanksley had a great game that night.

He did, playing 40 minutes in that game, after playing 35 and 36 the prior two days. Gustys also had a monster game, playing 44 minutes in that one. The two of them almost got HU to the finish line by themselves that night.

With everything that's happened since cutting the nets in D.C., that title 2016 title game feels about 12 years ago instead of four.

[cactus]

Possibly, but they also had a 12 point lead in the 2nd half in the final.

Might've been more and might've held onto it with Nichols.

If Nichols was healthy we win that game without Green at his best to put it mildly. Remember though that Tanksley had a great game that night.

It's almost like you guys are saying if they had a healthy contributor off the bench, they would have been in a better position to win.

[stuball888]

The main reason we won this year as opposed to 2016 and 2019 is defense. Even Joe said that Green and Tanksley didnt play defense. While Taylor was a stud in the post last year and Buie was the defensive player of the year in the CAA, This year the entire guard corps and team is playing better team D.In 2016 and 2019 how many games did we winn scoring 70 points compared ti this year. We were able to lock down a good scoring team like Delaware where in years past we could not do it. Anothe thing but watching the CAA championship game I was impressed with the passing of this team. They found the open man and even when Kante got the ball in the post if they collapse on him he would find the open man on the perimiter

[triplec2195]

I remember Malik Nichols but a bit out of sight out of mind so I play the Devil's advocate here what is the basis for saying we win with Nichols? I'm curious at to what the logic is since he was scoring around 5 points a game was a very below average FT shooter and got about 5 boards a game. He shot two's over 50% got his points in the paint on a lot of O rebounds if I remember correctly. I'm not saying here we wouldn't have won with him just wonder what the reasoning is. Getting around 20 minutes or so.

[triplec2195]

The main reason we won this year as opposed to 2016 and 2019 is defense. Even Joe said that Green and Tanksley didnt play defense. While Taylor was a stud in the post last year and Buie was the defensive player of the year in the CAA, This year the entire guard corps and team is playing better team D.In 2016 and 2019 how many games did we winn scoring 70 points compared ti this year. We were able to lock down a good scoring team like Delaware where in years past we could not do it. Anothe thing but watching the CAA championship game I was impressed with the passing of this team. They found the open man and even when Kante got the ball in the post if they collapse on him he would find the open man on the perimiter

BTW Stu didn't really recall that Joe said they didn't play D. Was this common knowledge??

[Wags]

The main reason we won this year as opposed to 2016 and 2019 is defense. Even Joe said that Green and Tanksley didnt play defense. While Taylor was a stud in the post last year and Buie was the defensive player of the year in the CAA, This year the entire guard corps and team is playing better team D.In 2016 and 2019 how many games did we winn scoring 70 points compared ti this year. We were able to lock down a good scoring team like Delaware where in years past we could not do it.

Yup.

17-1 when allowing under 70 points this year, including all three games in the CAA tourney (in which they allowed 43, 61 and 61).

9-7 allowing 70+.

They didn't score in big numbers in the tourney (61, 75 and 70), yet because they locked teams down, they were still able to win by 18, 14 and 9.

[Flying Dutchmen]

I remember Malik Nichols but a bit out of sight out of mind so I play the Devil's advocate here what is the basis for saying we win with Nichols? I'm curious at to what the logic is since he was scoring around 5 points a game was a very below average FT shooter and got about 5 boards a game. He shot two's over 50% got his points in the paint on a lot of O rebounds if I remember correctly. I'm not saying here we wouldn't have won with him just wonder what the reasoning is. Getting around 20 minutes or so.

If we had him in the CAA Finals, he could have gotten DK out of that game in the second half and defended Flemmings. That in itself might have been enough to win the title.

[triplec2195]

I remember Malik Nichols but a bit out of sight out of mind so I play the Devil's advocate here what is the basis for saying we win with Nichols? I'm curious at to what the logic is since he was scoring around 5 points a game was a very below average FT shooter and got about 5 boards a game. He shot two's over 50% got his points in the paint on a lot of O rebounds if I remember correctly. I'm not saying here we wouldn't have won with him just wonder what the reasoning is. Getting around 20 minutes or so.

If we had him in the CAA Finals, he could have gotten DK out of that game in the second half and defended Flemmings. That in itself might have been enough to win the title.

OK FD thanks for the response to this I don't have a great recollection of that game would like to revisit the video of it. Yes Chris Flemmings was a tough player for us to stop and in a close game anything could have tipped the scales in our favor. These were two very evenly talented teams so its hard to predict what could have happened here. So with Koon a good offensive player and a respectable D player at 6'8 with the sub Nichols for Koon you say would have helped us defensively. Malik not a great scorer but a scrappy guy in the paint. Just my recollection Flemmings was 6'5 Nichols around the same Koon had a few inches on both so I'm reading between the lines that you feel Malik a quicker D player that would have given Flemmings trouble scoring. It's a valid theory for sure but we'll never know a tough finish for the year for us including the loss to GW in the NIT with the last second shot and the fact that we should have played that game in Hempstead!! What could have been!!

[Polito]

Yep Nichols impact wasn't scoring, it was his aggressive defensive and rebounding energy. He was a bit of an enforcer on a largely 'soft' team. That team had so much talent, but I absolutely hated how weak and whiny they came across all year. Malik was literally the only dog in the house. Losing him was brutal, and Green falling off a cliff when it mattered most was the death blow.