It's mostly about recruiting but other things play a role too. Getting the right kids for this conference has been his biggest failure since day one and my biggest concern since he was announced coach 6 years ago. And then its becoming evident there is questionable decison making re roster management. Reuter, Millers redshirt and most recent Frazer getting 30 mins vs vcu and 10 mins next game? yea i get he is a freshman but so was Miller. Henry? He should be playing atleast 5 mins each game. Daddy? Is he a DI player? Hustle is great, but doesnt mean you should be playing DI? Pulling Nathan Knights scholly. One player finishing all four years of eligibility with DP is big concern too. There's probably more that i forgot about, however the consistent mediocore results stand out the most.
For me, while you are dead on with every point, the biggest issue is our lack of any identity. This isn't just about fan boredom (although that DOES matter), it's that good teams have a style that other teams have to game plan for. A college basketball game is a chess match, and the winner is the one that forces the other to adapt to their game plan.
Our games never seem to go that way. I fully accept I could be dead wrong, but to my eye... We are individual athletes playing disorganized ball, like under Hewitt. We win when our guys have a good day, we lose when they don't. It never seems to be, "Is [opponent] going to lure Mason into a slow, methodical game like they prefer, or is Mason going to force [opponent] to adapt to their up tempo style?" Or, "The question here is whether [opponent] can limit turnovers against Mason's relentless trapping defense." Or whatever. No, it's just, "[opponent] has a strong identity, or a specific strength, or an Achilles heel. Can Mason score enough to beat them?"
I watch almost every game on TV. The commentators always have a lot to say about the other team's style, plan, coaching. You can actually hear them searching for something to say about us.
Maybe this is just basketball now, and I'm just a grumpy old man. I liked 35-second, back to the basket, inside out, 5 position basketball. Maybe I just don't follow enough college ball to realize my beef js not with Mason/Paulsen but with the evolution of the sport. But my eye says this:
We play a style that is reliant on out- hustling, out-working, and out-athleting the opponent. But we do not attract good enough athletes to pull it off. So we have moderate success because sometimes it all clicks, but more often than not because there are other shitty teams to beat. Paulsen has a record right around .500, but look how much of that has to do with creative scheduling (or in this year's conference slate, lucky scheduling). I would rather have years in the top 3 and other years in the bottom 3 than continue to place in the 5-9 range, never sniff post-season, and get all excited about ONE good win a year.
If we missed the boat on being vcu, Gonzaga, etc., and have consistent success, I'd rather make the NCAAs every couple of years, win a game every couple of trips, and spend a couple bad years rebuilding in between. At least then we'd have hope.
