Brycen Goodine Transferring to Providence

[CuseFaninVT]

I'll back up SUbear and ORRange because this is nonsense. Goodine not being good enough as a freshman BUT also having a promising future are not mutually exclusive opinions. Both can be true, and are true, which is why the staff were probably disappointed to see him go. This team was fighting an uphill battle for a tourney spot for much of the season, which was attainable up until the last couple games. To do that, he had to play his best guys.

It's atleast a coherent argument to say that our team wasn't very good so Goodine should have gotten more time to develop. However it's emphatically disingenuous to say that Goodine could do the same things Jg3 and/or Buddy could do last season. I don't think any single person can rationally state Goodine deserved to take minutes from Jg3 or Buddy. That's pure speculation based on nothing but delusion or an agenda (Alsacs, I don't disagree with you that 200 minutes isn't enough time to fully aid to a player's development but it IS enough time to determine if said player can help you win now, in my opinion). You (not you specifically Alsacs) can't throw away 200 minutes of actual numbers because it's the only tangible asset to use as a backing for an argument regarding whether a kid should play or not. To be sure, Goodine didn't pass the eye-test either, but for the sake of having a strong argument, that's subjective and shouldn't be used on its own. The fact of the matter is, this team wasn't bad enough to sacrifice winning for development.

As you noted Bombay, "this isn't your father's SU" when really, it'd be more accurate to say this isn't your father's College Basketball. The game is different and kid's don't stick around like they used to. If you haven't noticed, college basketball as a whole is seeing a record number of transfers for a variety of reasons. With the impending rule of a one-time transfer on the horizon, the transfer numbers will become even more extreme. Expect to have 1-2 kids transfer each and every year. It's a bummer Goodine left, I'm sure JB and the rest of the staff weren't expecting it and I'm confident Goodine will be a starting guard at Providence in his career. But JB played the guys that gave him the best chance of winning, and that's his job. Not to appease players so they stick around the next year.

One last thing, it's common for programs to tighten their rotation to 7/8 guys. It's rare to see a school play more than that unless you're 2015 Kentucky with 10 all Americans ready to use at your disposable. If Goodine performed better, I'm sure he would have played, but let's stop this narrative that JB maliciously keeps guys buried on his bench when there's really nothing to point to Goodine warranting more minutes.

That’s simply not true.

 

[Alsacs]

I'll back up SUbear and ORRange because this is nonsense. Goodine not being good enough as a freshman BUT also having a promising future are not mutually exclusive opinions. Both can be true, and are true, which is why the staff were probably disappointed to see him go. This team was fighting an uphill battle for a tourney spot for much of the season, which was attainable up until the last couple games. To do that, he had to play his best guys.

It's atleast a coherent argument to say that our team wasn't very good so Goodine should have gotten more time to develop. However it's emphatically disingenuous to say that Goodine could do the same things Jg3 and/or Buddy could do last season. I don't think any single person can rationally state Goodine deserved to take minutes from Jg3 or Buddy. That's pure speculation based on nothing but delusion or an agenda (Alsacs, I don't disagree with you that 200 minutes isn't enough time to fully aid to a player's development but it IS enough time to determine if said player can help you win now, in my opinion). You (not you specifically Alsacs) can't throw away 200 minutes of actual numbers because it's the only tangible asset to use as a backing for an argument regarding whether a kid should play or not. To be sure, Goodine didn't pass the eye-test either, but for the sake of having a strong argument, that's subjective and shouldn't be used on its own. The fact of the matter is, this team wasn't bad enough to sacrifice winning for development.

As you noted Bombay, "this isn't your father's SU" when really, it'd be more accurate to say this isn't your father's College Basketball. The game is different and kid's don't stick around like they used to. If you haven't noticed, college basketball as a whole is seeing a record number of transfers for a variety of reasons. With the impending rule of a one-time transfer on the horizon, the transfer numbers will become even more extreme. Expect to have 1-2 kids transfer each and every year. It's a bummer Goodine left, I'm sure JB and the rest of the staff weren't expecting it and I'm confident Goodine will be a starting guard at Providence in his career. But JB played the guys that gave him the best chance of winning, and that's his job. Not to appease players so they stick around the next year.

One last thing, it's common for programs to tighten their rotation to 7/8 guys. It's rare to see a school play more than that unless you're 2015 Kentucky with 10 all Americans ready to use at your disposable. If Goodine performed better, I'm sure he would have played, but let's stop this narrative that JB maliciously keeps guys buried on his bench when there's really nothing to point to Goodine warranting more minutes.

Just for the record we weren’t on the bubble last year.
We were an NIT team.

I really don’t want to debate the bench and depth stuff because people are dug in and never change.
My position doesn’t need to be stated again.

We lost a good player. That sucks.

 

[maxxyz]

I'll back up SUbear and ORRange because this is nonsense. Goodine not being good enough as a freshman BUT also having a promising future are not mutually exclusive opinions. Both can be true, and are true, which is why the staff were probably disappointed to see him go. This team was fighting an uphill battle for a tourney spot for much of the season, which was attainable up until the last couple games. To do that, he had to play his best guys.

It's atleast a coherent argument to say that our team wasn't very good so Goodine should have gotten more time to develop. However it's emphatically disingenuous to say that Goodine could do the same things Jg3 and/or Buddy could do last season. I don't think any single person can rationally state Goodine deserved to take minutes from Jg3 or Buddy. That's pure speculation based on nothing but delusion or an agenda (Alsacs, I don't disagree with you that 200 minutes isn't enough time to fully aid to a player's development but it IS enough time to determine if said player can help you win now, in my opinion). You (not you specifically Alsacs) can't throw away 200 minutes of actual numbers because it's the only tangible asset to use as a backing for an argument regarding whether a kid should play or not. To be sure, Goodine didn't pass the eye-test either, but for the sake of having a strong argument, that's subjective and shouldn't be used on its own. The fact of the matter is, this team wasn't bad enough to sacrifice winning for development.

As you noted Bombay, "this isn't your father's SU" when really, it'd be more accurate to say this isn't your father's College Basketball. The game is different and kid's don't stick around like they used to. If you haven't noticed, college basketball as a whole is seeing a record number of transfers for a variety of reasons. With the impending rule of a one-time transfer on the horizon, the transfer numbers will become even more extreme. Expect to have 1-2 kids transfer each and every year. It's a bummer Goodine left, I'm sure JB and the rest of the staff weren't expecting it and I'm confident Goodine will be a starting guard at Providence in his career. But JB played the guys that gave him the best chance of winning, and that's his job. Not to appease players so they stick around the next year.

One last thing, it's common for programs to tighten their rotation to 7/8 guys. It's rare to see a school play more than that unless you're 2015 Kentucky with 10 all Americans ready to use at your disposable. If Goodine performed better, I'm sure he would have played, but let's stop this narrative that JB maliciously keeps guys buried on his bench when there's really nothing to point to Goodine warranting more minutes.

Well said.

 

[DoctorBombay]

I'll back up SUbear and ORRange because this is nonsense. Goodine not being good enough as a freshman BUT also having a promising future are not mutually exclusive opinions. Both can be true, and are true, which is why the staff was probably disappointed to see him go. This team was fighting an uphill battle for a tourney spot for much of the season, which was attainable up until the last couple games. To do that, he had to play his best guys.
(1) Disagree. This team was floundering and inconsistent and at best were looking at a longshot NIT bid. JB did a great coaching job, especially stomping UNC in the ACCT, but playing his starting backcourt 37 mins a game was foolish and IMO, unnecessary. That also, is not mutually exclusive.

It's at least a coherent argument to say that our team wasn't very good so Goodine should've gotten more time to develop.
(1) Bingo. This is the main gist of my argument.
However it's emphatically disingenuous to say that Goodine could do the same things Jg3 and/or Buddy could do last season. I don't think any single person can rationally state Goodine deserved to take minutes from Jg3 or Buddy.
(2) To paraphrase Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven: "Deserves got nothing to do w/ it".
That's pure speculation based on nothing but delusion or an agenda (Alsacs, I don't disagree with you that 200 minutes isn't enough time to fully aid to a player's development but it IS enough time to determine if said player can help you win now, in my opinion).
(3) It's only "speculation" if as you say, "you believe that's enough time to determine if a player can help you win now". I don't believe that's enough time to make that determination. 200 minutes of spot duty every other game shows nothing, maybe flashes at best, which we saw a few times with BG. Our defense especially was better when BG played the top of the zone- that was obvious. So he wasn't a total bust but who just walked on the court and face-planted every time. But I'm no HOF'er, so what do I know?
You (not you specifically Alsacs) can't throw away 200 minutes of actual numbers because it's the only tangible asset to use as a backing for an argument regarding whether a kid should play or not.
(4) And why is that? Maybe because that's all that was available as a metric because...he wasn't getting PT?
To be sure, Goodine didn't pass the eye-test in games either, but for the sake of having a strong argument, that's subjective and shouldn't be used on its own. The fact of the matter is, this team wasn't bad enough to sacrifice winning for development.
(5) That's also a subjective statement. IMO, the team was plenty bad, and at times that could be traced directly to the backcourt where, also IMO, BG could've proved valuable if allowed to develop.

As you noted Bombay, "this isn't your father's SU" when really, it'd be more accurate to say this isn't your father's College Basketball. The game is different and kids don't stick around like they used to. If you haven't noticed, college basketball as a whole is seeing a record number of transfers for a variety of reasons. With the impending rule of a one-time transfer on the horizon, the transfer numbers will become even more extreme. Expect to have 1-2 kids transfer each and every year. It's a bummer Goodine left, I'm sure JB and the rest of the staff weren't expecting it and I'm confident Goodine will be a starting guard at Providence in his career. But JB played the guys that gave him the best chance of winning, and that's his job. Not to appease players so they stick around the next year.
(5) Agree w/ this part. My pet peeve w/ JB isn't specifically about BG, he's just the latest example of a short bench philosophy that I absolutely detest. Another good example would be BJ Johnson, who got no run at SU, but became a very good player elsewhere.

One last thing, it's common for programs to tighten their rotation to 7/8 guys. It's rare to see a school play more than that unless you're 2015 Kentucky with 10 all Americans ready to use at your disposable. If Goodine performed better, I'm sure he would have played more, but let's stop this narrative that JB maliciously keeps guys buried on his bench when there's really nothing to point to Goodine warranting more minutes.
(6) I don't see where anyone has said it was done "maliciously", unless I missed something. Rather I'd say its bullheaded, stubborn, shortsighted, impetuous, and lazy. Developing a bench in-season is not easy, and obviously its not something JB prefers to do. His 2-3 Zone is hard enough to learn as it is, and introducing new parts to the equation can make it a harder and longer job to pull off. Fair enough. That's who he is and has been for over 40 years, but as a fan I have never agreed with that take. We've won in his system, but IMO, this is one of his main coaching deficiencies. A short rotation has knee-capped seasons before, and that threat looms ever year. He does not do bench. And also as a fan, of his and of the program, I will continue to biotche and moan about it...as is my right. Good talk.

 

[obliterata]

Didnt he play significant minutes in the preseason games?

He played 100 minutes in 11 OOC games, I wouldn't call that significant.

now what did he shoot in game?

He shot poorly. Given more PT maybe he shoots better, or maybe he doesn't but still contributes to a successful season. He played 6 minutes versus Wake Forest last year and won the game for SU with a put back of a missed shot, he would've never played if 3 guys didn't foul out.

I've always liked a coach that played a lot of players but you can win playing any style, I just hate to see players riding the bench all the time.

 

[IthacaMatt]

the guy shot 30% from the field and 12.5% from 3 on the year - I think he was fairly judged

You can become a better shooter but not a better defender? I disagree with that statement. You can absolutely become a better defender.

There is a clearer ceiling to how much better you can get on defense, which is limited by your inherent athleticism, size and strength.

Shooting can go from awful to good to excellent with enough work with the right coaching. Just look at Michael Jordan. Do any of you realize that in his first FOUR YEARS in the NBA, he failed to shoot even 20% from three?

In fact, he shot only 13% from three in year four! And then he improved to mid-to-high 30% from three during his championship years.

So, I think it's fair to say that it's a lot easier to improve your outside shot than it is to improve your defense. Or at least there is a limit to how much better you can get at defense, determined by factors beyond your control.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Exactly. The coaches were reportedly upset that BG left, so obviously they saw enough to want him here. It’s not like they said good riddance. But the point is, if you gave the kid the chance to get better, odds are he stays. This isn’t your fathers SU. If a kid constantly rides the bench, AND he sees others doing what he does but still getting PT, chances are he’ll leave.

In fairness to Boeheim on this one, I went back and checked Goodine's minute logs. He only played 23 games, I think it was, out of 32 or so, but he actually played more than 10 minutes in 9 of those games. That's not a terrible chance to show what you've got.
Over the years, I have always said that if you get 10 minutes a game (for the bulk of the season, not a third of it), then you are a rotation player. Goodine was not a rotation player, but he did get more chances than I remembered.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Just for the record we weren’t on the bubble last year.
We were an NIT team.

I really don’t want to debate the bench and depth stuff because people are dug in and never change.
My position doesn’t need to be stated again.

We lost a good player. That sucks.

I think the most important thing is that now that we are restocked and have some depth, we have to actually PLAY THEM this year, to avoid having another 3 or 4 guys transfer out next year.

 

[tee1222]

Just my opinion so here goes:
Brycen has potential. He could very well thrive given the opportunity. I think he did the right thing transferring out.

Buddy is a shooter and is developing some scoring mid range because they have to respect his outside threat. I believe he has earned his time on the court.

Girard took Carey's job. Period. Another kid I rooted for but if you can't see that Carey struggled, I don't know what to say. Girard, early in the season showed that he wasn't afraid to score, bring up the ball with a surprisingly decent handle, and let's face it. He is a flat out gamer. He wants the ball. Wants to succeed. Carey had a bad case of the yips. You just can't have that as a PG, also see Kaleb Joseph.

So that brings me to Kadary. Looks promising, hasn't proven anything. But coach believes in him and his practice run and that is good enough for me. Just not sure where that would leave Brycen. He did what is best for his career and I hope he rocks it, as opposed to kicking rocks.