We place so much emphasis on the tournament when we label the entire season because in reality, that's what it all comes down to for every team. But Hofstra was 8-6 in the regular season (CAA play), Elon was 4-7 (CAA). Was Elon's season a "success" if Hofstra's was a "failure?" Elon's tournament was a great success, but their season, relative to Hofstra's? Was JMU's season a "failure" after going 8-2 (CAA) because they lost to Elon in the quarters and went two fewer tournament rounds than Elon? Disappointing season for Hofstra? Definitely. Failure? I don't think so if what returning guys did this year helps them grow toward titles later.Hofstra wrote:Couldnt agree more. Total failure this season. Everyone dealt with covid. Some dealt with it better than others. It isnt an excuse for the effort, or lack their of in most games.Flying Dutchmen wrote:No, I'll say it was a failure.
Did you see the rosters our competitors rolled out? With all due respect to Drexel, they were a tomato can last year, and they got it done this year. Hell of a job by Spiker and the team to get it done, but come on.
I hope the players and coaching staff look at this year like a failure too. They have to know they can be the best team in the CAA.
Drexel really got coached up well. Normally, I would think of them as our rivals, but this season we just didnt have killer instinct. Never in contention. Happy for them.
I get the "failure' sentiment right now and understand why people feel that way when expectations aren't met, but I also think those expectations should've been tempered to begin with. I was surprised they were picked 1st after losing what they did from last year and I warned very early this season that everyone was forced out of their roles by default. Love Coburn as a person and sometimes did as a player, but I said early on, he was not a No. 2. He worked out well in his role last year because he didn't have to be a No. 2. This year, he had to be by default, and just wasn't. Ray grew into being a No. 1, but not always a reliable No. 1 and Coburn even less reliable as a No. 2. When you can't rely on that, how do you expect to win? That evolution wasn't going to happen magically. They were what they were.
Still, Ray had a good year. But very hard to win without a legit No. 2 on any team at any level. Then throw in the conference COY missing all season, and what did people really expect? They certainly didn't overachieve, but based on all that, I don't think they really underachieved that much either. They merely put themselves in decent position and came up short. Pretty much what I expected from the beginning. Cramer's help as a freshman and Burgess' growth (more than I expected) gave me more hope, but I also said before the tourney, watch out for Elon - HU ran into a very hot team at the wrong time. So, all in all, I can't get on board with "failure." It was about what they should have done given what they were, which was never really as good as some believed. I can only call this season a "failure" later on, in retrospect, if in the future, guys like Burgess, Kante, Cramer, even Farrelly if he's the HC, don't continue to grow off of this season and don't seriously contend later.
Minimal momentum. Minimal attention. Minimal shine. Minimal achievement of the verbal goals. Sorry, but that's just not good enough to me. And I hope it's not ok for everyone else, for this program, the admin, or this U as a whole.