B1G Youth

[Mavric]

Another one for the "this team is young" file:

 

[Mavric]

Speaking of...

 

Michigan State's top two scorers and four of their top five are all freshmen.

[PaulCrewe]

Speaking of...

Michigan State's top two scorers and four of their top five are all freshmen.

But we all know one will not be returning

[Mavric]

[GSG]

 

Speaking of...

Michigan State's top two scorers and four of their top five are all freshmen.

But we all know one will not be returning

Is it McQuaid?!

 

(Obviously joking. Gf and I like to make fun of McQuaid but he's been pretty solid this year)

 

What are Bridges' draft projections looking like?

[ScottyIce]

Man, another shot at the team you "like"

[seaofred92]

its completely fair to take shots at the team you like when they seem committed to running a JV organization like this AD seems to be doing in regards to Nebrasketball. Illinois just hired Brad Underwood today, would you rather have him or Tim Miles leading this team into next year?

[desertshox]

Man, another shot at the team you "like"

where exactly is this shot? youth is just an excuse for failure. the thread is just pointing out that other teams overcame their "youth" and won. and if it's the "one of them wont be back" comment, iirc one of the freshman at MSU was considered a one and done coming out of high school. if i have that wrong, one of them leaving is also just the way of college basketball now.

[Mavric]

Man, another shot at the team you "like"

 

Yeah, see this is your problem. You like to read in your own interpretations into everything.

 

As the last two posters have noted, there is no "shot" at the Huskers at all. What I've post is simply factual notes about other teams. That you interpret them as a shot shows more about your own mind-set than mine.

 

These posts are simply pointing out that those who try to play the "this team is young" card are obviously not looking at the entire picture. Most of the conference is young. Yet they were able to overcome it much better than we were. So it seems like there is obviously much more to the story than that.

 

This fact has been pointed out several times yet some people seem to not want to believe it. So I was noting some examples to back up the point. Probably won't change those people's minds but at least those who want to take an objective look at things will have a more complete picture to look at.

[GBRFAN]

It's great that freshman can come in and play at a high level - however not all freshman are created equal. Most 5 star players are expected to produce from day one. 4 star players are usually missing some small piece to the puzzle and that can sometimes be corrected before the beginning of their freshman year - so they are a coin flip. Most low 4 star and high 3 star players aren't going to come in and light it up. So comparing a school that got mid 4 star and 5 star recruits to a school that got mostly high 3 star players - then placing the difference on the coaches is silly.

[desertshox]

It's great that freshman can come in and play at a high level - however not all freshman are created equal. Most 5 star players are expected to produce from day one. 4 star players are usually missing some small piece to the puzzle and that can sometimes be corrected before the beginning of their freshman year - so they are a coin flip. Most low 4 star and high 3 star players aren't going to come in and light it up. So comparing a school that got mid 4 star and 5 star recruits to a school that got mostly high 3 star players - then placing the difference on the coaches is silly.

incorrect. you expect to see growth from your freshmen. early season struggles are expected with almost all freshmen. late season, they should be able to execute the offensive and defensive plans at a fairly high level if they are playing. and that in-season growth is mainly from coaching.

[GBRFAN]

 

It's great that freshman can come in and play at a high level - however not all freshman are created equal. Most 5 star players are expected to produce from day one. 4 star players are usually missing some small piece to the puzzle and that can sometimes be corrected before the beginning of their freshman year - so they are a coin flip. Most low 4 star and high 3 star players aren't going to come in and light it up. So comparing a school that got mid 4 star and 5 star recruits to a school that got mostly high 3 star players - then placing the difference on the coaches is silly.

incorrect. you expect to see growth from your freshmen. early season struggles are expected with almost all freshmen. late season, they should be able to execute the offensive and defensive plans at a fairly high level if they are playing. and that in-season growth is mainly from coaching.

 

 

You should see growth from ALL players and yes freshman should show the most growth because they are less experienced. Your post and my post are talking about 2 different things - but nice intro with a one word sentence that missed a capital letter.

[Mavric]

[teachercd]

This was my thinking as well.

 

People were like "Oh, but this team is so young...wait until next year" Well, I get that but there are a lot of young teams in conference so you are more likely to see more of the same next year.