If you are on the premium forum, then you may know that I recently came on-board and now work for Texags. If you aren't on premium, then I'm the former co-publisher and co-owner of Aggie Websider and we were the A&M site on Rivals.com and Scout.com for the past 15 years. Brandon and Billy hired me and I've been working here for a couple of weeks.

I've been following and discussing Aggie basketball for years, and the same dynamic I saw occasionally on my message board is happening here....the classic bangers vs. pumpers exchange on every thread.

To be honest, this constant back and forth hinders quality discussion. Both positions are valid and certainly worthy of discussion and worthy of its own thread. Yes, it is fair to critique this staff and criticize the results from the past three years. Yes, there are reasons why some people feel the program may have bottomed out and the talent on paper looks better than any in the past three years.

But as a moderator and especially as someone who enjoys basketball discussions, it's the constant drumbeat of the same mantra on every thread that impedes any ongoing discussion. I think it's well-established that many people wanted Kennedy fired and that has been discussed over and over and over since February. We know about the player attrition. We know about the staff attrition this offseason. Yeah, it's not good.

So, because some (many) think the program is going nowhere and think the coach should be fired, does that mean we can't have a Texas A&M basketball discussion on other related topics with the program without a "who cares, Kennedy should've been fired anyway" reminder on every thread?

We get it. Y'all think Kennedy should be gone. Duly noted. Now, can we talk basketball? He's here for the 2014-2015 season whether we like it or not. We all realize the situation.

I established a rule of thumb on my board that worked for the most part that I think may help the discussion here. If you are frustrated and want to discuss the cons of Kennedy and this program, feel free to start a separate thread and open it up for discussion. However, a Danuel House transfer thread or a recruiting thread is for discussing those topics and not another opportunity to hammer Kennedy or the state of the program. Hammer Kennedy on the "Hammer Kennedy" thread. Discuss the details surrounding House's transfer on the Danuel House transfer thread. A post like "why would a Top 20 recruit want to play for this dumpster fire of a program" just causes a fight among posters and the original thread goes off-topic. That's what frustrates many posters.

That's my two cents anyway. Thanks and I look forward to talking hoops with you going forward.




Hop

[This message has been edited by Hop (edited 5/23/2014 3:24a).]

Well Said Hop.


Out

"Never forget who we are or where we come from, never forget the Aggie Code of Honor and never forget Duty, Honor, Country." President Gates

Very well said and it very much needed to be said! Nice to have a voice of reason here.

I'm happy to see more hoops people being brought in. The problem with discussion with out realistic negativity is hard because of the last three seasons. Every season we are told about all these new deference makers, and every year we are looking at disappointment. Who is the one constant the last three season? The laundry list of Kennedy fixers is long. At some point it's hard to buy into good things when you've been burned over and over.

I think Robinson will be interesting and Jones will bring some toughens. There is nobody up front and rebounding will be a struggle. I think losing Smith was a big deal. Caruso needs to play under control. Space needs to rebound and play defense. Green needs to play defense and get tougher. I fully expect this to be a rebuild year for Fitzgerald, it's going to take him awhile to get back on track. Miller is a high energy guy that while undersized needs more burn. Allen wont play enough defense to see a lot of time unless he is just going off with his shot. Roberson will look nice against inferior teams and will shrink once SEC play starts. Roberson drives me nuts. Kid didn't look at all interested in the CBI games or most of the SEC. Johns is still to raw. I'll be interested in Trocha.

Best of Luck Ags. All the way to the NCAA next year.

This has been a paid political announcement.

I'm Eric Hyman and I approved this message.

Hop, you need to manage your expectations concerning this forum and Aggie basketball. Once you do that the pain of reality will fade and acceptance will set in like 69ag. You'll be free of the burden of disappointment, the pain of reality and fully embrace the Aggie mantra of "wait 'til next year".




Honor Shelby with Shelby Metcalf Court at Reed Arena.

For me it's just a matter of riding things out. There is simply no empirical evidence to suggest a .543 coach is going to come off that mark.

hey XL2Lose...who is 69Ag??

Even this thread had to include BK bashing by some...that is all they know..old.... tired and predictable

That would be you. Your hand is played in public when you now publicly state to XL=lose. Excellence is a concept that apparently escapes your thin grasp.

I suspect you have a deep knowledge of losing. That would explain your complete and enthusiastic acceptance of such.

[This message has been edited by XL2Win (edited 5/23/2014 9:30a).]

I agree with Hop.

Thanks Hop. Certain people DO hijack every thread and it takes the enjoyment our of every discussion.

quote:

---

Both positions are valid and certainly worthy of discussion

---

actually no they are not. the pumpers have no position at this point to be pumping anything. until there is any evidence that there may actually be something to pump (i.e. new coach, or a drastic change in the quality of our play) then there is no basis for any positive argument.

i agree that not every thread needs to bash the program, but unfortunately that is the state of aggie basketball. Our AD failed our program. If you tell the bangers to go away this board will be dead and full of false hope

Expert, we did get a new coach

Unlike the past two off seasons, the coaching staff got a major shakeup this time around, not just roster changes. I think some posters may be too easily dismissing the Stansbury hire as something irrelevant to the equation, and the motivations behind him even coming here as irrelevant.

Stansbury is already having an immediate impact in recruiting.

We may be bad yet again next season, but the coaching status quo was shaken up enough to certainly have some hope of possible improvement.

[This message has been edited by Pumpkinhead (edited 5/23/2014 12:05p).]

Thanks to the usual suspects to hijack another thread.

And as far as Hop......thank you texags, there is a God!

The Stansbury hire is amazing no doubt, regardless of whatever motivation may or may not be behind it. It's not often you have an assistant with a much better resume than your HC.
Still doesn't change my outlook. A positive outlook will need to be earned and that won't happen until November.

quote:

---

Stansbury is already having an immediate impact in recruiting.

---

Go on...

Thanks Hop, I look forward to your future contributions in these discussions. I've always enjoyed Logan's participation on this forum.

Honestly, this board can have some of the best discussion on TexAgs but it can also devolve into the worst. There's obviously a lot of knowledge and passion in the contributors here.

Expert, Stansbury actually has a better resume than several current head coaches in the SEC, not just Billy Kennedy.

WAC, read the Danuel House thread again.

THE LOVER, your first post is a great example of what I'm talking about. Your first paragraph basically provided very little in the way of real discussion and basically re-established your personal view that this program has no hope under Kennedy and others who think otherwise simply aren't based in reality.

Now, your second paragraph was completely different. You led into the reasons why you think Aggie basketball won't be good and you critique each player. That is a good lead-in to a what good be an interesting and entertaining discussion.

What will never work on a forum like this is telling people that have a differing opinion that they are clueless, stupid, or not based in reality, etc. All that gets is the other poster calling you an ass and fighting with you. On the other hand, simply state your opinion and back it up with your observations.

"I think this team will have a hard time reaching the Big Dance because the post play is not up to par. Roberson isn't very long or athletic for a 6-foot-9 post and his hands are small and he can't grab rebounds or catch inlet passes into the post effectively without losing the ball."

or...

"I think this team has a good shot at the Big Dance because I think Top 50 point Alex Robinson will take some of the pressure off Caruso and he'll have a big year after significantly improving his assist-to-turnover ratio late in the season. Jalen Jones has been the best player in practice since last year, and I think Tony Trocha will provide adequate defense and shot blocking ability in the paint."


I think those evaluations are more entertaining versus "This team sucks" and "We are going to the NCAA's. I have faith in Billy". That tells me nothing versus the other stuff that makes me think and then respond thoughtfully as well.






Hop

Hop, you make a good point but placing a forecast on kids that haven't even hit the court and, in Trocha's case, haven't played organized hoops for TWO years is a stretch at this point.

Your "sample" post about those two kids is pure speculation and may or may not have any basis in reality. You might as well say "if Durant's long lost twin brother shows up, then ..." The only difference is that we know that Durant doesn't really have a twin brother but both are speculative and based on wishful thinking.

On the other side of the coin, there is no tangible evidence (and correct me if I'm wrong here) that BK can coach these kids up. Player development seems based largely, if not entirely, on physical maturation. After three years we still have players that don't understand floor position and other fundamentals like blocking out, proper setting and use of screens, etc. At the collegiate level that is all about coaching, IMO.

quote:

---

Expert, Stansbury actually has a better resume than several current head coaches in the SEC, not just Billy Kennedy.

---

PH, the problem with that statement is the phrase "head coach". Stansbury is not the head coach.

I am hoping that BK will allow Stansbury to become the floor coach. As I've said before we have had pretty good opening schemes but are a miserable failure in making in-game adjustments. Stansbury MIGHT be able to fix that ... IF he is allowed the opportunity to try

XL, I don't know enough about Kennedy's personality style to guess the potential working arrangement between him and Stansbury. Is he a relatively laid back guy who has typically encouraged input from his assistants in the past, including during games? Is he a generally hardheaded dictator 'my way or the highway' personality type? Perhaps Hop can share some of his impressions of Kennedy's personality and how well he thinks a man with whatever attributes Kennedy has might co-exist with an assistant coach who has the background that Stansbury has.

You have brought up a great point that Hop did not really get into that could significantly affect next season. How well will Kennedy and Stansbury work together and will they be able to maximize what Stansbury can offer?

[This message has been edited by Pumpkinhead (edited 5/23/2014 1:50p).]

That dynamic will prove to be interesting and could very well be the hinge point for improvement of the product on the floor which would translate into a better W/L effort and a possibility of a NCAA tourney invitation.

What I do know is that more of the same will generate more of the same. Stansbury has to be a change maker and only BK controls that issue.

XL2Win, that was just a sample to show how you can take ANY position (banger, pumper, indifferent) and make a thoughtful, analytical post that can foster intelligent discussion.

And following up on your comments regarding Trocha and the newcomers, I can at least have a discussion and provide my opinion and feedback that a "Kennedy sucks" comment will not generate. That's my primary point on this thread.

Since you asked, I'll answer. I'm not saying that I know for a fact that Trocha will be functional. What I do know is that he has all of the physical measurables of a good college post and A&M hasn't had someone with these measurables and athleticism since probably Bryan Davis. And the bar was set pretty low the past two seasons with Kourtney Roberson, Keith Davis, Andrew Young, Antwan Space, and Dylan Johns. Basically, if he can grab 6-7 rebounds a game, block a couple of shots a game, and change a few more shots in the paint, then he's an upgrade. The kid is tall with a long wingspan and he's athletic with a solid build. It's not a complete stretch to think he can contribute as I mentioned defensively. He's not a sure thing, but I think I'm closer to the projection than your blanket "he hasn't played in two years so he won't help" stance. Granted, he hasn't played competitive ball with the lights on, but the guy has been playing with his A&M teammates at the Rec Center for those two years so it's not like he's coming in cold turkey. He has been working out with the team informally, and he starts formal workouts w the team next week. So he will have another 5 months w the team in formal conditions.

Sure, there's a chance he doesn't pan out, but I don't think it's blind faith to think he will upgrade the position either.



Hop

so you're predicting 7 boards & 3 blocks per game from trocha?

Twenty two, he said 'couple of blocks'. Don't know where you live, but where I live 'couple' invokes thoughts about the number 2 not 3

No, what I'm saying is if he can simply deliver 6-7 boards and can disrupt a few shots in the lane, then he has upgraded the position and I will consider that a positive contribution. We don't need a 15-point, 8 rebound guy to be better in the paint.



Hop

Hop the thing I keep coming back to is this has never been about the players. Not that this team has ever been can't miss loaded under Kennedy. The problem I have with saying this is a tourney team is I don't see how this team is any better than year one Kennedy team. Kennedy simply has no history of many tournament appearances. I keep going back to .543 and what that tells me is Kennedy is exactly what we have seen for three years.

OP, your point is fair, but there is a subjective component to discerning which comment is 'perma-negative' versus 'acceptable'. I notice you made no mention of posters who are such apologists for the coach and team that it makes a balanced conversation difficult.
Re-reading your post, OP, I must disagree with the notion that one can separate the 'Daniel House transfer' thread from the 'Kennedy blew up the program' thread. The former was caused by the latter. To cure the patient, one must treat not the symptom, but the disease.
It's the same reason why MBB attendance dropped 40%. It's not that a few fans at Reed showed up and ruined the atmosphere. Nor is it the lack of in-state rivals, but the poor quality of Aggie basketball that made folks turn away.
To conclude, the TexAgs staff could ban those who feel compelled to contextualize how whatever specific topic was being discussed (player transfer, hiring of new assistant coach, etc) within the themes of 'underperforming head coach, negligent AD'. However, that might risk a decline in views and posts that might in some ways mirror the decline in attendance at Reed.

I appreciate the service TexAgs provides the online community, particularly those who are passionate supporters of Texas A&M athletics. I would miss the discussions if I felt compelled to turn away from the free service that I enjoy and direct my eyeballs elsewhere. Please continue to resist the commercial interests supporting censorship of coach and athletic director criticism. Limiting this criticism to one thread on the basketball forum is no better than designating a 'free speech zone'.




[This message has been edited by ckwarren33 (edited 5/23/2014 4:10p).]

[This message has been edited by ckwarren33 (edited 5/23/2014 4:11p).]

what seems likely is that he may disrupt a few shots and grab a few boards, and then he may be a little slow to the speed of the game because of the layoff, so he ends up in foul trouble limiting his minutes, leaving us right back with roberson and johns and the same rebounding problems.
i bet he is a nice contributor as a jr.

Here's the thing, we keep kicking the can talking up the next round of hot shots to come in and play here. After year one Reese, AC, Harris and Young would come in and be the fix. When that didn't work it was wait for Jones, Space, Smith. And AC and Reese will be a year older. Now it's wait till the new Jones gets in here and Robinson and TT. At some point this becomes a trend. Waiting on the next golden boy to get in here and elevate the program without coaching will be a long wait. Robinson isn't going to be able to help Kennedy know how to coach during a game and how to make adjustments. The issue comes back to a coach that isn't qualified for this level of hoops. Roll the ball out there and sit back and let the team play hardly worked for Kennedy at lower levels and is killing him now. Byrne messed up with the hire that's plain to me. Looking deeply into Kennedy's past this is what he is.

^ These posts show how hardheaded some people are !

Sorry, but the negativity ruins this board.

Only a die hard pessimist cannot see that this team will win 20 or more games. Caruso will only be better with help at point guard - SMU transfer Jones will be better than what we had !

Just my 2 cents.

quote:

---

Expert, Stansbury actually has a better resume than several current head coaches in the SEC, not just Billy Kennedy.

---

I agree, he would probably be an upgrade at 4-5 other schools.