Big D

I think anyone who likes Will and wants him to stay should be encouraged by interview on Wyland's show today. Will said he had a "great meeting" with Benson. His tone was very upbeat about the UA program and the team next year. Wyland probably knows more than he lets on...and he was optimistic about Will returning next year.

That is interesting about Hurley. Boosters/outside sources can play an important role in keeping good coaches at the mid-major level. Amaker reportedly gets close to $1 million to coach at Harvard, with the substantial majority of that coming from sources outside the men's basketball budget. I doubt there is that level of outside resources/commitment connected to the hoop program at UA, but maybe something can be cobbled together that works for all involved. I'm sure Benson will do what he can to keep Will and reward him for the team's success. .

I think the number for either school will be more like $750k a year for five years. Both Pecora and Hewitt had contracts in that range. If WB is offered that type of deal, especially from GMU, it will be tough to keep him. Benson doesn't really have any control over this.

Will might leverage a Fordham offer to improve his deal with UA, but it's hard to imagine he would take that job...Fordham can't win in the A-10 and may end up in the Patriot League in a few years. I can't see him leaving unless 1) he gets a big raise (think $3 million over 5 yrs) 2)at a program that can win and 3)in a location his family is comfortable. Some A-10 schools would fit that bill, but not Fordham.

Given the stakes, the Hooley backstory, and how much we struggled to score during the first 39:55 of the game, that was one of the most amazing finishes we will ever see. As noted above, Mike Rowley is an unsung hero swishing two FTs under tremendous pressure. Great to see a good student turnout despite spring break. Also, it has to be said that Stony Brook fans were great, their band was outstanding, and their presence added to the electric atmosphere at SEFCU Arena. For those of you hoping for bigger arenas, playing at TU Center, etc., Saturday's game is a reminder that there is nothing better than a packed on campus venue for a college hoop game.

Lillis is in Chicago working in financial services. He was at SEFCU for the UMBC last Sunday

Once a year is enough for me. Also, to be fair, Siena pay day for the UA game is not really $200K. More like $80K which reflects the difference between a non Conference home game vs another team (5-6000 in attendance) and 11000 for UA minus tickets given to UA and additional cash payment. Still a great boost for them but not $200K

I know some of you think otherwise, but the idea of alternating the designated “home team” at the TUC is a much less attractive option. It will never feel like a home game. At best, it will be a neutral game. Even if we had the courtside seats, the majority of the fans would still route for Siena. Also, Siena season ticket holders are strongly opposed to this concept, and do not want to be relegated to visitors seats on Siena’s home court. This creates an additional negotiating obstacle A few other points: UA has earned the right to have a home. It’s really a question of competitive fairness. As noted, Providence agrees to play at URI every other year even though thousands are closed out when the game is played at URI. Villanova plays in St. Joe’s small gym every other year. Same principals of fairness should apply to Siena-UA going forward. Dumping the game is the easy way out and I hope it doesn't happen. Most people/fans of both teams look forward to the game. It’s certainly better than the usual non-conference games against Ivy, Patriot, MAAC/AE type teams that fill a big chunk of the non-conference home game slate for both Siena and UA. Siena might be able to get a high profile team to come to the TUC once every few years, but that would be the exception to the usual boring non-conference opponent. Even more true for us at SEFCU. Playing at SEFCU every other year would add some juice to the rivalry. I’d bet that at least 500 Siena fans would find a way to see a Siena UA game live at SEFCU through team/player allotments or otherwise. (Vermont always brings a few hundred fans which adds to the atmosphere). The rest can watch on TV and look forward to a home game at the TUC the following year. The only way a home and home (TUC/SEFCU) deal hurts Siena is they have to play a true road game against a local rival. If that’s the reason why D’Argenio doesn’t want to play at SEFCU, then there is no room for compromise and the series will likely end. The ball is in his court and I agree with WB on this.

The game is good for the area and should be continued if rational minds sit down to work out a solution. WB's arguments have less to do with money than with competitive fairness. There are two equitable ways to continue this game. The first is to have a traditional home and home series the way it is done with most non-conference rivalries. One year at Siena’s home venue (TUC) with Siena keeping all the revenue. The next year at UA’s home venue (SEFCU) with UA keeping all the revenue. Those Siena fans who have suddenly become advocates for the “community interest” in having as many people as possible attend the game, should be honest with themselves…they're not using this line of argument because they care about the community, but rather as a pretext for not yielding on the current arrangement. There are numerous examples of other local rivals agreeing on a home and home arrangement. Providence College and URI have a long standing home and home series, even though an extra 5000 get to see the game when it is in Providence (12,500 vs. 7500). Boston College and Harvard have been playing home and home (9000 seats at BC vs. 2100 seats at Harvard). The other option is to have the teams alternate as the home team at the TUC. That’s the way Providence and URI used to do it in the 80s-90s. That’s the way Villanova, Penn and St. Joe’s used to do it (using the Palestra as the venue). Any other proposal is based on a false narrative…that Siena and UAlbany are not competitive equals. That narrative was true 10 or 15 years ago but no longer. Losing 4 of the last 5 years should make this clear to even the most delusion Siena fan. I personally prefer the traditional home and home arrangement, and think alternating sites would add energy and interest to the game. The rivalry is fun and the game gives the area sports fan something to look forward to each year. If the series is cancelled, both sides lose, but it should not continue on the current terms.

I'm with you on Burlington, but most D1 hoop prospects don't care much about ski mountains, hiking gear, etc.

I doubt Vermont aspires to move up in conference. Hockey is the only other sport of significance at UVM, and they already play in the Hockey East, which is one of the top conferences for that sport. UA's future in hoops is obviously tethered to football and lacrosse, and I agree moving up in conference level would be a challenge for many reasons, the most important being money. That should not be an excuse for mediocrity in the AE basketball conference. The first step to growth is sustained excellence in the conference you play in, whether it is the America East or elsewhere. Vermont can do it with different coaches, substandard facilities, remote location, etc. We should be able to do it as well. Maybe not every year, but most years. Butler moved up because they dominated the weak Horizon conference, Creighton dominated the stronger Missouri Valley before they moved up, VCU did the same in the CAA.

Haha, I hope too! Just trying to figure the facts, comparisons etc behind why there's a ledge people are on with the program being on a 'downswing'. People can feel anyway they want we are all entitled to that, I guess I look for facts and figures which tie to real expectations.. not just what "I feel" as a fan should happen, but realistically what can happen based on history. Not saying UA couldn't make history, we could I guess.. but not sure how realistic that is. Anyway, I just enjoy the wins, stay through the losses, clap that we have smart kids on the team, be optimistic that would get to the tourney every year and in 22 years hope we can finally have a home game against Siena. MsGDG, you seem like a knowledgeable and enthusiastic supporter of the UA hoop program and I have no problem with your positive, “glass half full” appraisal. I don't think the current state of the Siena program has anything to do with the trajectory of the UA program since Jamar graduated. I use Jamar as the touchstone because we squandered the opportunity to leverage the success he brought to the program. Some programs havea special player who not only wins while he is there, but also transforms the program going forward. Contrast our performance "post-Jamar" with Vermont's performance "post Coppenrath". Before Coppenrath played for UVM, the Catamounts were a perennial losing program and a frequent doormat in the AE. From 1970 to 2001 (32 seasons) UVM never won more than 16 games and had a losing record in 25 out of 32. Since 2001 (Coppenrath's freshman year), Vermont has won 20 or more games 10 of 12 years, with 8 AE championship game appearances. Clearly, the success of the Coppenrath years raised the UVM profile, which was used by Lonergan to land better recruits (Trimboli, Blakely, Voelkel, etc), and perpetuated Vermont's success. We have not come close to replicating that kind of sustained excellence in the AE. I am realistic about the UA program...there are structural limitations (especially the bball budget-which is low major for sure) which make it hard to move up. The hoop budgets for teams in the CAA are substantially higher than ours. Hoop budgets in the A10 are 2-3 times larger than ours. That may continue to be a challenge down the road, but there is no reason why we should not win 10-14 games in AE conference play year in, year out. Injuries, JUCO's who don't pan out, bad calls by refs, and all the other micro-explanations can no longer be used to justify a sub-.500 conference record in the AE. Six years ago, I thought the balance of power had shifted from UVM to UA. I thought every home game would be like the Big Purple Growl by now. The reality is that very little has changed. I still enjoy going to games, will still support the team in other ways, but the program seems to be stuck in neutral for the foreseeable future.

I'm frustrated that we struggled to beat Binghamton and UMBC at home. I expect more than that from the Men's hoop program at this point. Yes, we can explain away a bad performance in any single game based on almost anything ( injuries, missed foul shots, matchup problems, hot shooting opponent, etc. etc). A large sample of games tells a more meaningful story, and I must admit to being very disappointed with the evolution of the program since Jamar graduated. Since then (6 1/2 years ago), our AE conference record is a thoroughly mediocre 49-53. We should dominate the America East. Vermont is 76-25 in conference play during the same time frame. Beyond that, our attendance is static, community interest is no different than it was 7 years ago, and there does not appear to be any reason to think league dominance is coming anytime soon. There was a feeling in 2007 that the UA hoop program was on the launching pad, and that with a few more good recruiting classes, we would outgrow the AE, and every game would be close to a sellout. That has not happened. I like a lot of our current players, and I certainly appreciate that WB recruits high character freshman who are student-athletes. I like coach, respect what he does, and have supported him when others were " calling for his head" in the past. Mike Brown's layup vs. Stonybrook in the AE tourney, followed by the terrific win at Patrick in the AE final, earned WB another contract, so talk about coaching changes are pointless for at least a couple of years. Coach Abe is a good example of what a talented coach can do for a program. That is a discussion for another time. What we need in the short term is on the court talent (4 year talent, not JUCOs who may give you one productive year) and a plan for growth, not sustained mediocrity.

Admittedly, Siena's win over Stanford 17 years ago was a bigger accomplishment, because a win is a win. I think Siena was a 14 seed that year. Stanford was a "soft 3 seed, and Siena's very quick and talented point guard, Marc Brown, played the game of his life. That said, the Siena-Stanford game did not captivate the national audience the way the Alb-UConn game did. The Siena game was played during the afternoon, in front of a partially filled arena in sleepy Greensboro NC. and had relatively few TV viewers outside the home markets. On the contrary, the UA- UConn game was in prime time, in a big city, on a Friday night, on St. Patrick's Day. This gave the game a unique energy, with large parts of the country feeling like they were watching a college hoop miracle unfold. Yes, Siena's win was a greater accomplishment, but watching 16 seed UA take a double digit lead against UConn was more compelling to the average hoop fan.

Not alot of concensus on this issue. I vote for traditional white at home and black with purple trim on the road.

That is the hope olddog, that Will's stature as a coach can grow as the program gets better. There was an interesting column in the NY Times this week, about mid-major coaches who who leave great situations for more money, and end up out of a job because of mediocre performance and unreasonable expectations at the big time program. Buzz Peterson (teamate of Michael Jordan at UNC) was one example. Success at Tulsa led to big money offer from Tennessee which Peterson accepted. 4 mediocre years led to his firing. Now Peterson is coaching at Coastal Carolina which plays in a gym which only holds 1000 people. The model I think we should all want for Will is Mark Few, coach of Gonzaga. He has been with the program 10+ years. As the Zags got better, and the program received more attention, Few's contract was adjusted accordingly. He now reportedly makes $500,000, which is less than the top tier coaches, but still provides an excellent quality of life in a place like Spokane WA. Few has turned down offers at major conference programs because he is comfortable being a big fish in a little pond, is paid well, has a good recruiting budget, and gets to play (and beat) the big boys in non conf. games.

Like all of us, I like Will, and want him to coach here for many years. But lets be realistic, if a big money, high profile job comes along, Will's going to take it. He acknowledged this, saying last week that he aspires "to coach at the highest level" of college hoop. And of course there is nothing wrong with that. Yes, he has been loyal, but to be fair, so was the Admin., by retaining a 31 year old as a D1 head coach after the Beeten fiasco. I think even Will would concede that his career track was accelerated by Beeten's unexpected departure. Obviously, Will gets alot of credit for stabilizing, and then building the program during the last few years. That's why he will get a big raise and a multi-year deal. But lets not get ahead of ourselves. Sustained success (i.e. 20+ win seasons, and regular NCAA appearances) is usually what makes mid-major coaches attractive to schools in the big conferences. This year was great, but it will be the next 3-4 years that will determine the trajectory of Will's coaching future, as well as the future of the UA program.

Don't sell Yocum short. He is a legit 6' 8", with good skills and hoop IQ. He played with two all-American guards at Episcopal Academy, and is used to winning against high level competition. I'm not sure whether he will play as a 4 or 5, but he could get meaningful minutes next year.

It was amazing that UA outscored UConn in the paint. Alot of that was because Jamar was the best player on the floor for most of the game, and made great decisions off his dribble penetration. I loved when Packer yelled "They can't handle him!" after Jamar hit the short jumper to make it 50-38.

I'm sure the admin. will do everything necessary to keep Will here. McElroy took a gamble last year by not signing Will to a long term deal. Now he will have to pay a premium for this year's success. I'm sure the negotiations will be quickly resumed and completed to everyone's satisfaction.

Its amazing how perspective can change so quickly. I would have happily signed for a 13 point loss before the game. Now we are disecting why the game slipped away. Its hard to criticize anyone, but Brent did miss a few open threes. Jamar was great. Completely under control, and never tried to do too much.

Smokey Joe's is a good sports bar near the Penn campus.

There are four "flagship" schools, which has always been part of the image problem, nationally. When Rockefeller was expanding the SUNY system in the 60s, he wanted the four University Centers (as well as the state colleges) in different parts of the state for political reasons, so that everyone got a piece of the pie, and would therefore support the massive expense of building campuses. The upside was all regions benefit economically. The downside has been no focal point for big time college sports. Dane 96 hit it right on the head re: the need to change the "culture" of the school. It won't happen overnight, but this NCAA bid is a good start. UConn is a perfect example of how a basketball program can change a school's perception of itself. As the UA basketball program continues to grow and succeed, the students will have more school spirit, and become emotionally invested in their school as students and alumni. This causes applications to increase, selectivity and academic reputation to increase, and alumni donations to increase. As for the RACC, lets not get ahead of ourselves. I'll take 4,000 at the RACC over 6,000 at the Pepsi Arena every time.

Thanks for posting the great photos.

Some of that was because our guys kept fouling Vermont players even after the game was out of reach. Allowed Vt to score a bunch of points on foul shots with the clock stopped. Refs called a bunch of touch fouls in the last 5 minutes as well.