Season Over - 2 Key Questions?

[CHRISTOPHER JAMES JOLLAY]

Seems like you are into this DP theme, "us against the world". But the big picture is, it's just a smoke screen. We still can't play vs the big boys of this conference. After 6 years that is.

I literally was saying or implying none of what you are presently talking about.

They are a pretty close-knit group, by everything I've heard.

 

[GSII]

I literally was saying or implying none of what you are presently talking about.

They are a pretty close-knit group, by everything I've heard.

Unlike you, I would be shocked if everyone returns bc DP does. You think suddenly we're going to have an identity offensively and defensively.... it's taken 6 years, we're borderline schizo.

 

[gmubrian]

This is my take on this off season.

1) they keep Paulsen on a lame duck year: program doesn't give a shit about where the team is.

2) they extend Paulsen: school is content with being a middle A10 program.

3) they fire him: we want to get better and make tournaments.

One of these three will happen and we'll know what the school wants with this team. Then everyone here can make a decision on how much they want to commit to the program.

I have a slightly different take on how to interpret the potential actions by the AD. Based on chatter on here, I see the following as the most likely options:

1. Paulsen is fired. The AD is not completely strapped financially and there is still hope that Mason has intentions to be a top tier team in the A10.
2. Lame Duck Paulsen. I would interpret this as Mason has no confidence in Paulsen but the AD is strapped financially. Related to that, I have suggested that the AD might be hurting financially due to issues this year. My understanding is that enrollment for the school overall is down significantly this Spring combined with minimal ticket revenue and likely ticket donations down as well. This still leaves hope open that Mason is dedicated to being a top tier team in the A10.
3. One Year Extension, likely with low cost buy out. Mason has lost most of its confidence in Paulsen and is possibly strapped financially. This is basically giving Paulsen a do-over for this past year. This might be a Hail Mary type play by Brad and Paulsen to allow Paulsen to silence his critics. I don't see how this is really hugely different from lame ducking him. A one year extension isn't really going to inspire confidence in recruits that Mason believes Paulsen is our long term coach and with a cheap buy-out, you are basically saying he is going to be fired after next year if he doesn't perform.
4. Multi-year Extension. Uggggh. Mason still has 100% confidence in Paulsen and really is not dedicated to being a top tier team in the A10. They are happy to operate a clean program that hovers in the middle of the pack for eternity.

The one year extension is the one that makes the least sense to me, overall, so I am assuming that is exactly what Mason will do.

 

[GMUSSTN]

They are happy to operate a clean program that hovers in the middle of the pack for eternity.

This always drives me crazy. Yeah our players are nice and no one is getting suspended or winding up in jail (or, god forbid, stealing pillows from a hotel room), but I can count on one hand the number of players who have spent all 4 years of their eligibility under Paulsen.

If 80% of your players wind up transferring I don't see you as running an optimum program.

 

[gmubrian]

This always drives me crazy. Yeah our players are nice and no one is getting suspended or winding up in jail (or, god forbid, stealing pillows from a hotel room), but I can count on one hand the number of players who have spent all 4 years of their eligibility under Paulsen.

If 80% of your players wind up transferring I don't see you as running an optimum program.

I agree, it is not optimum. I am assuming the definition of "clean program" from the schools point of view. No scandals. No negative publicity off of the court. Not creating problems in the faculty Senate. Basically, not creating waves off of the court.

 

[GMUSSTN]

I agree, it is not optimum. I am assuming the definition of "clean program" from the schools point of view. No scandals. No negative publicity off of the court. Not creating problems in the faculty Senate. Basically, not creating waves off of the court.

Yeah I mean obviously that's the metric the school will use to justify it...I just won't buy it at this point because Paulsen can't even convince guys to stick around for 4 years.

 

[patriot2000]

Transferring is a huge part of the college basketball landscape now. I'm certainly not justifying Paulsen's absolutely horrendous roster management and attrition rate, but I just don't see it as a concern for the people who make the decisions. I also do not see it as a sign of a program that is not "clean."

I agree with Brian's definition of a clean program and the school just does not care beyond the fact that they make no negative waves, do some good in the community, and do not have an abysmal record. The school would be happy to have a competitive basketball program, but it is just not important to them. What IS important is that we produce at least mediocre results without scandal. If we were .500 with off-the-court issues, Paulsen would be gone. If we were consistently in the PIG and had a regular season record below .300, Paulsen would be gone. But, I am afraid that consistent middle-of-the-pack results with "good kids" is good enough for our current administration to just stay the course.

That is my head. My heart says, everyone knows we are due for a regime change at the university level, and are just waiting it out for now. The basketball shake-up is coming, but we are just stuck in a very unlucky timing situation. Let's hope my heart is right.

 

[GMUSSTN]

Transferring is a huge part of the college basketball landscape now. I'm certainly not justifying Paulsen's absolutely horrendous roster management and attrition rate, but I just don't see it as a concern for the people who make the decisions. I also do not see it as a sign of a program that is not "clean."

I agree with Brian's definition of a clean program and the school just does not care beyond the fact that they make no negative waves, do some good in the community, and do not have an abysmal record. The school would be happy to have a competitive basketball program, but it is just not important to them. What IS important is that we produce at least mediocre results without scandal. If we were .500 with off-the-court issues, Paulsen would be gone. If we were consistently in the PIG and had a regular season record below .300, Paulsen would be gone. But, I am afraid that consistent middle-of-the-pack results with "good kids" is good enough for our current administration to just stay the course.

That is my head. My heart says, everyone knows we are due for a regime change at the university level, and are just waiting it out for now. The basketball shake-up is coming, but we are just stuck in a very unlucky timing situation. Let's hope my heart is right.

I hope your heart is right too. I can't remember but someone here posted recently all of the players Paulsen has recruited in his 6 years here, and I think I saw he graduated 4 of them. Even given that transfers are a part of basketball, that's shockingly low, and I think it's a side effect of him forcing guys to play out of their natural positions to cover for his defficiencies as an in-game coach. Even without scandal, 4 is a horrible number...it's not even a full lineup of starters who want to stick around and play for the guy.

I truly hope we're wrong and the administration does consider it worth the investment to at least get a guy that players want to play for.