yeahlunchbox said:
I don't see where a tougher schedule would have made us more likely to win against better teams at the end of the year. For a young team we were remarkably consistent and well defined. We gave great effort every night and our defense was very difficult to score on. And while our defense kept us in pretty much every game, our shooting was very poor so our offense kept the other team in pretty much every game. I don't think playing a tougher schedule makes our team better shooters, which is what kept us from going to the tournament. I don't think our lack of experience is what did us in.
Well, look at it this way...
They almost lost to Fordham twice, at the end of games. They fell apart against Georgia Tech, St. Joe's, Davidson, Dayton, VCU, and UMass. They held on against Richmond, GW, and Nebraska. They tried their damnedest to throw away the LaSalle game away.
Say they played a couple better (mid-major) teams, and they get pushed early, get more experience in tight games...they might have stolen one of two of those games late, or maybe not needed a squeeky bum 2 minutes, and Gil Biruta being in the right place at the right time to not be 0-2 against Fordham.
I'll flip it on you though...this team scheduled this year Pace, UMass-Lowell, Delaware St, and Nebraska. They finished with 27 scheduled games (the exempt tournament and the 18 conference, and 8 non-conference)...what was gained by scheduling no road games, and leaving 3 games unfulfilled?
Why did we play a D2 as a regular season game? Why didn't we take a buy game against a major on the road to give the team more experience in atmospheres like that?
Rhode Island's fanbase is the only fanbase I've ever heard spend a decade bitching about soft schedules, and then when a schedule gets weaker, there are excuses about it.
Since Hurley took over, URI has had the 93rd, 238th, and 232nd toughest non-conference schedules. What is the value in that.
And I know what the next step argument is, but they turned down attractive games.