Well, that worked great. We finished 6th in an event where every team is battling the same transfer portal issues. Illinois State and James Madison have the same issues. At some point, you can't use this excuse.

QFT.

Some of us said something very similar to this back when the football v basketball arms races were heating up. We don't have enough $$ to be both a top 75 football team (who gets rewarded with insert random no-name bowl game against SW Alabama State) and a top 75 basketball team with legit chances for atlarge ncaa bids most years.

We said if we choose both then they likely both suffer in mid major mediocrity.

Welcome to it.

On your first point, you are correct in saying that follow your shot is not really taught anymore, especially at the college and professional levels and probably most high school programs. For the exact reason you mentioned later in your post. The risk of getting burned in transition. Most coaches want 2-3 players starting to get back in transition right away after a shot (some more, some less depending on how aggressive the coach is in their rebounding/transition defense thinking), and the easiest way to do this is for the shooter and one or two players to consistently get back. The thinking is that a non-shooting player that can start crashing as the ball is shot is more likely to get an offensive rebound than the shooter that has to land and then build momentum towards the ball. As with any strategy, it doesn't always play out that way, but the thinking is that doing this consistently is the most efficient rebounding/transition defense strategy. And usually the more conservative strategy is employed more often when you play with more guards that aren't going to get many offensive rebounds over big guys that can go get offensive rebounds. In my opinion that is clearly the case with us, because we have fewer guys who could end up with the O-board, we probably opt to get back on defense to protect against easy buckets in transition.

On your second point, yeah it is important to box out. But when you play two big guys that are less athletic, shorter, and not as strong as other teams, along with having two small guards on the court at all times, you can box out however much you want. Sometimes you are going to get out sized to rebounds. I feel like that is the bigger issue with this team. We just don't have the size, length and athleticism to rebound with the teams we've competed with so far. It's not an effort issue, it's a style of play issue. As many others have stated, Boals has clearly chosen to play with more guards and shooting vs athleticism and size. That can benefit you in some ways, but is clearly hurting us in the rebounding battle on both ends. (This is my opinion, I'll be the first to admit I don't spend every possession making sure all 5 guys on the floor are boxing out, so it could be partially and effor issue, I just think size is the bigger issue).

And please for the love of god...no more saying...."We can't schedule games, because nobody wants to play us."

Those days are so long gone.

Then why did we let Memphis buy us? That's more likely a loss than a lot of P5 teams.

Because Boals, for better or worse, wants 1 for 1s, or at least 2 for 1s. Maybe 2 away and a neutral. Getting p4 teams to go on the road is what's impossible.

We signed a buy with Memphis who is not P4. Why would we expect 1 for 1 with a P5 who would be less willing because almost all have more money. It IS plausible that we ask for more money than nearly all mids because our home attendance is higher and we have more to lose in giving up a home game. That seems a lot more plausible. Memphis is a better team than a lot of P5s so we aren't afraid of a tough game. We have also played them in the past. Other MAC teams getting games is an indication that these games are out there underthe right circumstances. But we already know that without those specific examples. It is NOT an indication that we didn't try. The way people talk about scheduling on this board is like they think that it is easy. Sure, I don't know for sure that Boals isn't lying to us but I see no reason to jump to conspiracy theories. With P5s playing conference games, the made for TV P5 vs P5 matchups, and 360 D1 teams trying to get them these games are less available. And it isn't like picking up the phone as asking to play is all that has to happen. There have to be all sorts of other things worked out. They probably just didn't work out. That's the most reasonable explanation. Really, it is.