Jump to content



UAlbany Athletics- America East-
SOCIAL MEDIA: UAlbany Facebook- UAlbany Instagram- UAlbany Twitter- UAlbany Blog-
MEDIA: Albany Student Press- America East TV- ESPN3- Schenectady Gazette- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio Archive interviews- Times Union College Sports- Times Union Sports- WCDB- WOFX 980-
FALL SPORTS LINKS: CAA Football-
WINTER SPORTS LINKS: College Insider- Pomeroy Ratings- Real TimeRPI-
SPRING SPORTS LINKS: Inside Lacrosse- Lax Power Backup Stick-
OTHER FORUMS: America East Forum- Any Given Saturday Forum- Championship Subdivision forum(1-AA Discussion) The Hen House - Siena Forum- Stony Brook Forum- Vermont Forum

UAlbany vs. Maine (2/9/2013)


Recommended Posts

My numbers differ a little (so I am probably off some), I have him at something like 97-113 in AE & AE tournies which doesn't appear to good but........

 

He was 11-44 in his 1st 3 years when he took over a program in total disarray and had very few DI players ( I remember the 4 on the floor at Hartford).

 

With out counting those 1st years from 04/05 to the present he is something in the neighborhood of 76-63 in AE play which includes 8-6 in AE Tourney

 

Not great but respectable numbers. The two NCAA appearances are more then any team not initialed UVM

 

Just some food for thought and discussion.

Patch, Thanks for pointing this out. I also noticed, that in this same time period UA football has not really been the dominating team some bloggers like to constantly claim. Since 2004, UA has won outright two NEC titles and have tied for first twice. They have also had two seasons @ 4-3 and one 4-4 record in this time period. I would argue that AmEast basketball is a much more difficult conference than is NEC for football (the NEC did not even have an ncca qualifier until 2010/11?). I am not posting this to be divisive [i love both programs and have been a season ticket holder for both going back to DIII days].; but only to point out to those who seem to fail to realize how DIFFICULT it is to win at the college level.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 188
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My numbers differ a little (so I am probably off some), I have him at something like 97-113 in AE & AE tournies which doesn't appear to good but........

 

He was 11-44 in his 1st 3 years when he took over a program in total disarray and had very few DI players ( I remember the 4 on the floor at Hartford).

 

With out counting those 1st years from 04/05 to the present he is something in the neighborhood of 76-63 in AE play which includes 8-6 in AE Tourney

 

Not great but respectable numbers. The two NCAA appearances are more then any team not initialed UVM

 

Just some food for thought and discussion.

Patch, Thanks for pointing this out. I also noticed, that in this same time period UA football has not really been the dominating team some bloggers like to constantly claim. Since 2004, UA has won outright two NEC titles and have tied for first twice. They have also had two seasons @ 4-3 and one 4-4 record in this time period. I would argue that AmEast basketball is a much more difficult conference than is NEC for football (the NEC did not even have an ncca qualifier until 2010/11?). I am not posting this to be divisive [i love both programs and have been a season ticket holder for both going back to DIII days].; but only to point out to those who seem to fail to realize how DIFFICULT it is to win at the college level.

 

I understand what you are saying, sure it's difficult, no one said it wasn't...but perhaps once a half decade we can be a serious regular season or post season (AE tourney) contender?

 

Are those really such unatainable goals?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading and following this thread and wanted to add my thoughts. I can't say I am happy with how things have progressed since conference play but I haven't given up on this team. They can still make a run. Overall, I see both sides of the argument and am in the middle at this point.

 

On the overall progress of the program throughout the years... This is a YOUNG D1 program. I'm not talking about the players, I'm talking about the program itself. There are basketball programs that have been in D1 a lot longer and have not been to two NCAA tourneys. It takes a lot of time to build past the low mid-majors. I think the program, for the most part has been competitive in the conference, has won a few conference tournament games and has come close to winning several other tourney games (see SBU tip-in last year in semi). They have also run into some bad luck with good recruits (Raffa leaving, Turley homesick, Logan's injuries). These were good players that were going to be the foundation of the program for a few years and they basically had to start over.

 

I do agree that the post tourney hype was poorly managed. We should've been able to get some better talent out of that.

 

OK, I'm confusing myself now. On the fence here.

 

My numbers differ a little (so I am probably off some), I have him at something like 97-113 in AE & AE tournies which doesn't appear to good but........

 

He was 11-44 in his 1st 3 years when he took over a program in total disarray and had very few DI players ( I remember the 4 on the floor at Hartford).

 

With out counting those 1st years from 04/05 to the present he is something in the neighborhood of 76-63 in AE play which includes 8-6 in AE Tourney

 

Not great but respectable numbers. The two NCAA appearances are more then any team not initialed UVM

 

Just some food for thought and discussion.

Patch, Thanks for pointing this out. I also noticed, that in this same time period UA football has not really been the dominating team some bloggers like to constantly claim. Since 2004, UA has won outright two NEC titles and have tied for first twice. They have also had two seasons @ 4-3 and one 4-4 record in this time period. I would argue that AmEast basketball is a much more difficult conference than is NEC for football (the NEC did not even have an ncca qualifier until 2010/11?). I am not posting this to be divisive [i love both programs and have been a season ticket holder for both going back to DIII days].; but only to point out to those who seem to fail to realize how DIFFICULT it is to win at the college level.

 

I understand what you are saying, sure it's difficult, no one said it wasn't...but perhaps once a half decade we can be a serious regular season or post season (AE tourney) contender?

 

Are those really such unatainable goals?

 

Not sure if it is or isn't attainable, but what we can attain is the historical facts of current AE teams.

 

For those of us who haven’t been around the program for multiple decades here are amount of years it took the current programs in the AE to win a regular season championship or tournament championship after turning D1 and how many since.

 

Years it took each program after turning Division 1 to accomplish the feat:

 

Regular Season Champion

D1 1999 Albany – won 2006 took 7yrs (none since)

D1 2001 Binghamton --won 2009 took 8 yrs (none since)

D1 1915 Boston – won 1980 took 65 yrs ( 6 times since) *

D1 1984 Hartford -- never

D1 1903 Maine – never **

D1 1937 New Hampshire – won 1982 took 45yrs (none since)

D1 1986 UMBC – won 2008 took 22 yrs (stats say once more but I can’t find the yr)

D1 1999 Stony Brook - won 2010 took 11 yrs (once since)

D1 1920 Vermont - won 2001 took 81 yrs ( five since)****

 

 

Tournament Champion

D1 1999 Albany – won 2006 took 7yrs (once since)

D1 2001 Binghamton -- won 2009 took 8 yrs (none since)

D1 1915 Boston – won 1959 took 44 yrs took (6 times since)

D1 1984 Hartford -- never

D1 1903 Maine- never

D1 1937 New Hampshire – never ***

D1 1986 UMBC – won 2007 took 21yrs (none since)

D1 1999 Stony Brook - never

D1 1920 Vermont – won in 2002 took 82 yrs (4 times since)****

 

* Independent 1915-1972

** Independent 1903-1910

*** one year 1926 was D1 then not till 1937

**** Independent 1920-1925

 

Wonder what it was like to be a UVM fan before 2001? 82 years of nothing.

 

Took data from http://www.sports-re...nce.com/cbb/ I did this quick so hopefully the amount of yrs it took is correct.

Edited by MsGDG
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading and following this thread and wanted to add my thoughts. I can't say I am happy with how things have progressed since conference play but I haven't given up on this team. They can still make a run. Overall, I see both sides of the argument and am in the middle at this point.

 

On the overall progress of the program throughout the years... This is a YOUNG D1 program. I'm not talking about the players, I'm talking about the program itself. There are basketball programs that have been in D1 a lot longer and have not been to two NCAA tourneys. It takes a lot of time to build past the low mid-majors. I think the program, for the most part has been competitive in the conference, has won a few conference tournament games and has come close to winning several other tourney games (see SBU tip-in last year in semi). They have also run into some bad luck with good recruits (Raffa leaving, Turley homesick, Logan's injuries). These were good players that were going to be the foundation of the program for a few years and they basically had to start over.

 

I do agree that the post tourney hype was poorly managed. We should've been able to get some better talent out of that.

 

OK, I'm confusing myself now. On the fence here.

 

My numbers differ a little (so I am probably off some), I have him at something like 97-113 in AE & AE tournies which doesn't appear to good but........

 

He was 11-44 in his 1st 3 years when he took over a program in total disarray and had very few DI players ( I remember the 4 on the floor at Hartford).

 

With out counting those 1st years from 04/05 to the present he is something in the neighborhood of 76-63 in AE play which includes 8-6 in AE Tourney

 

Not great but respectable numbers. The two NCAA appearances are more then any team not initialed UVM

 

Just some food for thought and discussion.

Patch, Thanks for pointing this out. I also noticed, that in this same time period UA football has not really been the dominating team some bloggers like to constantly claim. Since 2004, UA has won outright two NEC titles and have tied for first twice. They have also had two seasons @ 4-3 and one 4-4 record in this time period. I would argue that AmEast basketball is a much more difficult conference than is NEC for football (the NEC did not even have an ncca qualifier until 2010/11?). I am not posting this to be divisive [i love both programs and have been a season ticket holder for both going back to DIII days].; but only to point out to those who seem to fail to realize how DIFFICULT it is to win at the college level.

 

I understand what you are saying, sure it's difficult, no one said it wasn't...but perhaps once a half decade we can be a serious regular season or post season (AE tourney) contender?

 

Are those really such unatainable goals?

 

Not sure if it is or isn't attainable, but what we can attain is the historical facts of current AE teams.

 

For those of us who haven’t been around the program for multiple decades here are amount of years it took the current programs in the AE to win a regular season championship or tournament championship after turning D1 and how many since.

 

Years it took each program after turning Division 1 to accomplish the feat:

 

Regular Season Champion

D1 1999 Albany – won 2006 took 7yrs (none since)

D1 2001 Binghamton --won 2009 took 8 yrs (none since)

D1 1915 Boston – won 1980 took 65 yrs ( 6 times since) *

D1 1984 Hartford -- never

D1 1903 Maine – never **

D1 1937 New Hampshire – won 1982 took 45yrs (none since)

D1 1986 UMBC – won 2008 took 22 yrs (stats say once more but I can’t find the yr)

D1 1999 Stony Brook - won 2010 took 11 yrs (once since)

D1 1920 Vermont - won 2001 took 81 yrs ( five since)****

 

 

Tournament Champion

D1 1999 Albany – won 2006 took 7yrs (once since)

D1 2001 Binghamton -- won 2009 took 8 yrs (none since)

D1 1915 Boston – won 1959 took 44 yrs took (6 times since)

D1 1984 Hartford -- never

D1 1903 Maine- never

D1 1937 New Hampshire – never ***

D1 1986 UMBC – won 2007 took 21yrs (none since)

D1 1999 Stony Brook - never

D1 1920 Vermont – won in 2002 took 82 yrs (4 times since)****

 

* Independent 1915-1972

** Independent 1903-1910

*** one year 1926 was D1 then not till 1937

**** Independent 1920-1925

 

Wonder what it was like to be a UVM fan before 2001? 82 years of nothing.

 

Took data from http://www.sports-re...nce.com/cbb/ I did this quick so hopefully the amount of yrs it took is correct.

 

I think this shows where the divide in the fans comes from. Some see it as very difficult and think we were lucky (as fans) to have the early success while others don't want to be compared to teams like Maine, UNH, or Hartford.

 

While I certainly recognize we as fans were lucky to experience the NCAA's twice very early in our D1 years, I don't want to view our programs success against teams that are year in and year out bad. I think we need to recognize that the bottom half of this conference is and has been very bad for a long time. Right or wrong I discount these teams most years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading and following this thread and wanted to add my thoughts. I can't say I am happy with how things have progressed since conference play but I haven't given up on this team. They can still make a run. Overall, I see both sides of the argument and am in the middle at this point.

 

On the overall progress of the program throughout the years... This is a YOUNG D1 program. I'm not talking about the players, I'm talking about the program itself. There are basketball programs that have been in D1 a lot longer and have not been to two NCAA tourneys. It takes a lot of time to build past the low mid-majors. I think the program, for the most part has been competitive in the conference, has won a few conference tournament games and has come close to winning several other tourney games (see SBU tip-in last year in semi). They have also run into some bad luck with good recruits (Raffa leaving, Turley homesick, Logan's injuries). These were good players that were going to be the foundation of the program for a few years and they basically had to start over.

 

I do agree that the post tourney hype was poorly managed. We should've been able to get some better talent out of that.

 

OK, I'm confusing myself now. On the fence here.

 

My numbers differ a little (so I am probably off some), I have him at something like 97-113 in AE & AE tournies which doesn't appear to good but........

 

He was 11-44 in his 1st 3 years when he took over a program in total disarray and had very few DI players ( I remember the 4 on the floor at Hartford).

 

With out counting those 1st years from 04/05 to the present he is something in the neighborhood of 76-63 in AE play which includes 8-6 in AE Tourney

 

Not great but respectable numbers. The two NCAA appearances are more then any team not initialed UVM

 

Just some food for thought and discussion.

Patch, Thanks for pointing this out. I also noticed, that in this same time period UA football has not really been the dominating team some bloggers like to constantly claim. Since 2004, UA has won outright two NEC titles and have tied for first twice. They have also had two seasons @ 4-3 and one 4-4 record in this time period. I would argue that AmEast basketball is a much more difficult conference than is NEC for football (the NEC did not even have an ncca qualifier until 2010/11?). I am not posting this to be divisive [i love both programs and have been a season ticket holder for both going back to DIII days].; but only to point out to those who seem to fail to realize how DIFFICULT it is to win at the college level.

 

I understand what you are saying, sure it's difficult, no one said it wasn't...but perhaps once a half decade we can be a serious regular season or post season (AE tourney) contender?

 

Are those really such unatainable goals?

 

Not sure if it is or isn't attainable, but what we can attain is the historical facts of current AE teams.

 

For those of us who haven’t been around the program for multiple decades here are amount of years it took the current programs in the AE to win a regular season championship or tournament championship after turning D1 and how many since.

 

Years it took each program after turning Division 1 to accomplish the feat:

 

Regular Season Champion

D1 1999 Albany – won 2006 took 7yrs (none since)

D1 2001 Binghamton --won 2009 took 8 yrs (none since)

D1 1915 Boston – won 1980 took 65 yrs ( 6 times since) *

D1 1984 Hartford -- never

D1 1903 Maine – never **

D1 1937 New Hampshire – won 1982 took 45yrs (none since)

D1 1986 UMBC – won 2008 took 22 yrs (stats say once more but I can’t find the yr)

D1 1999 Stony Brook - won 2010 took 11 yrs (once since)

D1 1920 Vermont - won 2001 took 81 yrs ( five since)****

 

 

Tournament Champion

D1 1999 Albany – won 2006 took 7yrs (once since)

D1 2001 Binghamton -- won 2009 took 8 yrs (none since)

D1 1915 Boston – won 1959 took 44 yrs took (6 times since)

D1 1984 Hartford -- never

D1 1903 Maine- never

D1 1937 New Hampshire – never ***

D1 1986 UMBC – won 2007 took 21yrs (none since)

D1 1999 Stony Brook - never

D1 1920 Vermont – won in 2002 took 82 yrs (4 times since)****

 

* Independent 1915-1972

** Independent 1903-1910

*** one year 1926 was D1 then not till 1937

**** Independent 1920-1925

 

Wonder what it was like to be a UVM fan before 2001? 82 years of nothing.

 

Took data from http://www.sports-re...nce.com/cbb/ I did this quick so hopefully the amount of yrs it took is correct.

 

Thanks for pulling all the numbers up. All interesting numbers, but for me the only program on that list that matters is Albany. It makes no difference to me that Maine or Hartford have never been to the dance or that it took UVM 82 years to get there. Are we supposed to look at the numbers and say, oh Maine and Hartford have never been to the tournament and we've been there twice in our short D1 existence so if we don't go back for another 82 years it will be ok? I just don't like comparing the other teams past history to ours. It just doesn't seem right to look at it that way maybe it's because I've only been following the program for nine years and everyone here has seen the transition to D1 from the beginning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

UA'08, I completely agree...lets just find the bottom 10% of programs in the country and compare ourselves to them. See...it could be worse, we could be Maine or Hartford.

 

SMH!

 

6 years + 5.7(on average) games out of first = non-competitive!

Edited by Clickclack
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need to recognize that the bottom half of this conference is and has been very bad for a long time. Right or wrong I discount these teams most years.

Except that the two worst teams the last three years were conference champions within the last six.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly, there are many ways to compile numbers. Bob didn't like my compilation.

It wasn't meant to prove any point, it was meant to initiate discussion. Whether you omit certain years or don't,

whether you take into account coaching changes throughout the past 12 yearss throughout the conference, or don't, or

whether you take into account we entered into D1 with Stony Brook vs other established teams in a basement level conference, or don't...

the road leads to the same spot.....

 

I gravitate towards this. We are in a basement level men's basketball conference.

With any numbers or stats one uses, our men's basketball program rests in the middle of the pack. We have not become

dominant, and we have not become consistent. I would prefer seeing this program dominant year in and year out, in this conference.

I'd like to see an conference upgrade. We will not see a conference upgrade being mediocre in the america east.

 

Whomever can lead this program to bigger and better places, is whom I want leading. I have no emotional attachment to Brown.

He works for my university. He's pulled in several million dollars and has set up his family well. If he can turn this boat into the direction

I seek, then I'd be more than happy having him stay. The problem is, he's been at the helm for a long time now.

 

The question is.... will we stay mediocre in this league for another decade or two....

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Whomever can lead this program to bigger and better places, is whom I want leading. I have no emotional attachment to Brown.

He works for my university. He's pulled in several million dollars and has set up his family well. If he can turn this boat into the direction

I seek, then I'd be more than happy having him stay. The problem is, he's been at the helm for a long time now.

 

The question is.... will we stay mediocre in this league for another decade or two....

 

AGREED.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would prefer seeing this program dominant year in and year out, in this conference.

Which programs' fans don't think they should be dominant year after year? UVM, SBU, BUMA all feel entitled to the 'dominant team' (regardless of results). Hartford thinks they're on the rise. The others think they only need a new coach.
I'd like to see an conference upgrade. We will not see a conference upgrade being mediocre in the america east.

Seriously, which conference? The sixteen-team (three public) Atlantic-10? The CAA is back near our level, throw out the conferences with FBS football, and everybody in the South and Midwest, who's left? The Patriot? Is that the upgrade you're looking for?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don't care about a conference upgrade...what I care about is winning or having a chance to win this league or whatever league we are in and an NCAA birth once every few years. The 18 wins is fools gold to cloud the picture especially since we are now 3 games down in the loss column to conference leading teams and still have to go on the road to SBU and BU. Hey, finishing 4 games out of first would be a minor miracle.

 

At what point will this mediocrity not be tolorated? Or is this not midiocrity...?

 

I get that often times people call this a 'what have you done for me latetly' business...I think ALL of us have been patient for a very long time for a chance to see this team rival SBU and UVM. I understand it's "hard"...I really do, but it's been SIX years and we haven't even sniffed a regular season title and NCAA birth.

 

I think it's time to ask has the trust of this University been rewarded and should another contract be extended. Its not personal...I for one don't hate the coaches I wish them the best of luck here or elsewhere.

 

Is this all we are or aspire to be...content with an also-ran mentality?

Edited by Clickclack
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all a very interesting conversation..with a seemingly wide range of opinions. I imagine it would be difficult for anyone here to convince others of their own opinions..because being a fan is pretty individual. It seems there are many different definitions of "success".."competitive"..and even "entertainment." Those definitions will likely vary based on personality.. time following the program..etc. For those who started following the program closely in the mid 2000s..it makes perfect sense to be frustrated..because we have yet to again reach that peak that some fans began with. For those who have followed the program much longer..the frustration level might not be as high because they may have experienced many more peaks and valleys. I imagine both groups..or all of the groups..want to get back to their own definition of "success" just as much as the other(s).

 

I think different programs likely have different definitions of success as well. After a number of years of sitting at/near the basement..I would imagine programs like the UMBCs..Binghamtons..and New Hampshires could view a few consecutive top half finishes as successful. Based on the past 8-10 years..a program like Vermont would likely view a few consecutive finishes outside of the top third as unsuccessful..but grab a Vermont fan from the 90s..and they'd likely be very excited about the thought of multiple-consecutive top half finishes. A program like Stony Brook has been successful in league play over the past few years..but has continued to be unsuccessful when it comes to an NCAA bid. Perhaps that changes this year.

 

Expectations are inherently personal..so I'm not sure loads of data and statistics will change either "side's" mind.

 

The piece that has been mentioned to a lesser extent..that I often heavily consider in my personal definition of success..are the academic achievements of the players/program. That's an area I think we can agree that we've been comparatively successful in recently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would prefer seeing this program dominant year in and year out, in this conference.

Which programs' fans don't think they should be dominant year after year? UVM, SBU, BUMA all feel entitled to the 'dominant team' (regardless of results). Hartford thinks they're on the rise. The others think they only need a new coach.
I'd like to see an conference upgrade. We will not see a conference upgrade being mediocre in the america east.

Seriously, which conference? The sixteen-team (three public) Atlantic-10? The CAA is back near our level, throw out the conferences with FBS football, and everybody in the South and Midwest, who's left? The Patriot? Is that the upgrade you're looking for?

 

The kind of conference upgrade I'm talking about will never happened with limited vision, small time thinkers.

Therefore, a reasonable goal is to actually become DOMINANT in OUR conference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all a very interesting conversation..with a seemingly wide range of opinions. I imagine it would be difficult for anyone here to convince others of their own opinions..because being a fan is pretty individual. It seems there are many different definitions of "success".."competitive"..and even "entertainment." Those definitions will likely vary based on personality.. time following the program..etc. For those who started following the program closely in the mid 2000s..it makes perfect sense to be frustrated..because we have yet to again reach that peak that some fans began with. For those who have followed the program much longer..the frustration level might not be as high because they may have experienced many more peaks and valleys. I imagine both groups..or all of the groups..want to get back to their own definition of "success" just as much as the other(s).

 

I think different programs likely have different definitions of success as well. After a number of years of sitting at/near the basement..I would imagine programs like the UMBCs..Binghamtons..and New Hampshires could view a few consecutive top half finishes as successful. Based on the past 8-10 years..a program like Vermont would likely view a few consecutive finishes outside of the top third as unsuccessful..but grab a Vermont fan from the 90s..and they'd likely be very excited about the thought of multiple-consecutive top half finishes. A program like Stony Brook has been successful in league play over the past few years..but has continued to be unsuccessful when it comes to an NCAA bid. Perhaps that changes this year.

 

Expectations are inherently personal..so I'm not sure loads of data and statistics will change either "side's" mind.

 

The piece that has been mentioned to a lesser extent..that I often heavily consider in my personal definition of success..are the academic achievements of the players/program. That's an area I think we can agree that we've been comparatively successful in recently.

 

Good points.

Again to me the stats provide by uofalbany show nothing on how difficult it is to get to the top( and stay there). Only how we have fared in the last 10 or so years which included the years as a new d1 school. I have followed sports(first pros) for almost 40 years(1974 is my first memories), so I come from the backround of a Mets, Giants and Isles fan. Other than the Giants, I have not seen any of my teams get back to the top in the time I followed them and the Giants were by far the worst team I followed when I started following them. And I have had friends who were NY Ranger fans, Cleveland Indian fans,etc so I have no complaints compartitively.

I understand everybody wants to win, but I see my pro teams with the advantages of being a big market sport(mets, isles to a lesser extent) where that helps never getting back and the one that has to play with the most fair competition(Giants) winning multiple titles, I wonder why people think Albany should always dominate.

Edited by bob87
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...