#1 Husson	bossman2345	16-0	26-0	11-0	15-0	8-0	10-0	W26	1	2
	#3 Castleton St.	rdb03161987	13-3	23-3	7-1	16-2	4-3	9-1	W4	2	6
	Lasell	carlbuzz	10-6	17-10	6-3	10-7	1-7	7-3	W6	20	4
	Elms	tyber90	8-8	18-9	7-4	10-5	1-6	6-4	W1	29	17
	Becker	nz00	6-10	17-10	5-5	11-5	0-6	4-6	W1	28	10
	Johnson St.	bieberfever	1-15	3-24	2-12	1-11	0-7	1-9	L4	240	13

1.	Thomas	12	55	51	43	55	36	38	44	48	41	58	77	51	B-	596
2.	Castleton St.	12	55	53	38	52	31	31	36	47	42	58	76	64	C+	583
3.	Mount Ida	12	44	55	37	44	33	46	31	44	44	56	81	66	B-	581
4.	Husson	12	51	52	39	54	29	46	30	43	39	54	77	62	B	578
5.	Becker	12	46	41	45	46	38	42	35	41	33	57	76	55	B	555
6.	Lasell	12	47	55	33	39	23	35	42	45	41	44	76	60	C	539
7.	Elms	12	45	49	33	48	25	35	40	46	43	37	73	51	C+	527
8.	Maine, Presque Isle	12	45	44	33	54	24	27	34	40	35	48	74	59	B-	518
9.	Maine Maritime Academy	12	46	42	32	41	23	33	34	36	32	62	75	51	C+	507
10.	Maine, Farmington	12	32	47	36	30	31	35	34	40	33	47	78	63	B-	504
11.	Johnson St.	12	43	49	34	35	26	25	28	37	37	44	76	45	C+	478
12.	Salem St.	12	29	35	42	31	29	30	24	27	33	48	73	71	C+	471

End of season #49

I looked at my Majik 8-Ball and this is what I saw for next season.... an even tougher NAC than this season.
The overall conference looks to be much more balanced with power. I don't see the eliete 4 teams making the final-4 type runs we have had this season however.
I predict more RPI's in the 10-50 range and less in the top-5.

Castelton State looks great (F-4 caliber).
Becker looks like a nice surprise. (2nd round+ NT type team)
Thomas very good (2nd round+ NT)
UMPI much improved (NT caliber)
Mt Ida rebuilding somewhat (squeeks into NT)
Lasell another solid season (NT caliber)
Husson, rebuilding alot (possible NT, PIT for sure)
Elms hard to repeat this season but (possible NT, PIT lock)
Farmington, dancing in the post-season finally
MMA, dancing as well... not sure which dance.
Johnson St, much improved but in a di-no-mite conference so....
Salem St. 0-16 in conference.

I see 6-7 again in the NT with 3-4 more in the PIT this season. Overall a more balanced conference as a couple of the top teams reload, the middle teams stay pretty tough.... and 2-3 of the rebuilding teams begin to join the fray.
Now, none of this will be remotely right if some go out and go 2-8 in NC games... or if a couple of us completely blow recruiting... just a look forward by removing seniors... plugging in some frosh (395-450 rated)... and projecting the improvement over the season.

3 real predictions from all this.....in order of how confident I am of them.

#1. Castleton State will again rule the North.
#2. Thomas returns to the top of the South. (if only for a season).
#3. Becker has a break-out season.

We'll C

To build from Mizzou's post.  Here is what the returning rosters will look like next season.

Team	Returning	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	FT	TOT	TALENT
Thomas	8	52.8	43.8	40.5	55.3	37.1	36.9	40.5	42.0	40.3	52.6	75.3	41.3	C+	558.1	389.0
Castleton State	11	56.3	50.6	38.4	54.2	30.4	29.5	32.0	43.5	36.7	56.5	75.0	62.9	C+	566.0	371.6
Becker	11	44.8	39.0	46.4	42.9	41.1	45.1	32.5	40.3	32.3	56.8	75.3	54.3	B	550.6	364.3
Mt. Ida	7	40.9	50.9	41.4	40.1	34.9	44.3	28.3	39.6	40.4	50.4	77.9	61.1	C+	550.1	360.7
Elms	8	43.5	45.9	32.3	44.1	24.8	34.8	44.5	42.0	40.8	34.1	71.4	46.3	C+	504.3	352.5
Lasell	9	42.1	57.0	25.6	38.3	19.8	28.3	48.0	48.3	44.6	42.3	76.2	53.3	C-	523.9	352.0
Husson	6	45.2	52.0	28.0	46.5	18.3	35.3	32.0	45.7	35.8	40.2	70.5	63.2	B-	512.7	338.8
UMPI	11	45.4	42.6	36.3	53.5	26.4	28.9	31.5	39.3	34.1	49.9	73.9	57.4	C+	519.1	337.9
UMF	12	31.6	46.6	35.4	30.3	30.7	35.1	33.5	40.0	33.4	46.4	77.7	63.3	B-	504.0	316.6
MMA	11	45.4	44.2	29.4	38.0	19.8	31.6	37.0	37.5	32.5	62.5	75.0	51.6	C+	504.5	315.4
Johnson State	11	42.5	50.9	29.3	35.4	21.5	22.7	29.9	40.2	38.6	43.6	75.2	41.9	C+	471.8	311.1
Salem State	8	32.5	39.5	42.5	33.1	26.6	30.4	30.9	29.6	37.5	38.5	72.6	79.9	C+	493.6	302.6
Average NAC Player		44	47	35	42	28	33	35	41	37	49	75	56	C+	521	341.42

Talent is simply subtracting WE, ST, and DU.  It's not completely fair but I think ranking by talent is a bit more enlightening than overall rating.  Salem State might have a 40 point advantage over Johnson State in overall rating, but I'll pick Johnson State to be the better team next season.  Talent also shows that Elms and Lasell are likely to be pretty close next season.

Anyway, I think Mizzou's magic 8 ball isn't too off.  Taking a look at teams in his order. 

Agree on Castleton.  Likely pre-season #1 in D3 next season.  RDB does it yet again.

I do think it underestimates Becker a bit.  Although I suppose 2nd round (+) is setting the bar high.  I think Becker might be closer to Final Four than 2nd round, however.  Sort of looks like where Husson was two seasons ago.  Except Husson jumped from 16-13, 44 RPI to the Final Four.  Becker has 11 upperclassmen coming back from a 17-2, 31 RPI team.

Not sure what to think of Thomas.  I believe the starting 5 will be able to run with maybe anybody in D3.  The talent rating suggests that might be true.  Although run with anybody might be a poor choice of words.  Because the starters have stamina issues and while I like my first guard and post off the bench, the rest of the roster might get messy.  Hopefully I can extend my streak of making to the 2nd round of the NT for a 19th straight season.  I feel pretty good about doing so.

I thought UMPI was being undersold, but I guess I'm giving Dac too much credit for being able to walk on water.  Don't think there will be a question about making the NT, but how far they go probably depends on seeding and seeding probably depends a lot on NAC play.  Could see UMPI winning or co-winning the South with an 11-5 record and could also see them going 6-10.

Mount Ida won't be squeaking into the NT.  They should make it with relative ease.  Non-conference schedule is pretty easy but looks like it avoids the RPI killers so will be in excellent shape entering NAC play.  And Mount Ida's returning talent matches with just about everybody in conference.

Lasell should be interesting.  Trust Carl will make it work but right now the rebounding looks pretty ugly.  But that was true this season as well and the guard ratings blow everybody away.

Don't see Husson making the big dance and not sure about the PIT.  Husson is going to need to make a big run in non-conference play just to get the wins to make the NT.  Don't see Husson pulling it off, if they were in the South it might be a different story.  Very interesting non-conference schedule set up by Husson.  All Sim AI but a few of those teams return much more than Husson does I'm not sure that Husson will be good enough to go 8-2 or 9-1 against it.  And if they don't, I really doubt they get the magic 14th win to make the NT.

I think Elms is better than Mizzou gives it credit for.  Although I'm not sure they are as good as Tyber might think.  I was about to put them in the same category with Husson for making the NT and I guess that still is the case.  But that non-conference schedule is a beast.  I think if Husson gets 14 wins, the RPI will be good enough to get into the NT.  I have almost no doubt that Elms will have a good enough RPI to get to the NT.  But 14 wins is going to be tough.  So actually, maybe Mizzou had it spot on.  I would say PIT lock.  NT is going to be if they can get to 14 wins.  With that non-conference schedule and in the NAC North, I'm not sure Elms gets there.

UMF is kind of like UMPI although I don't think UMF has the same ceiling since some of the UMF players seem like they are already maxed out.  I wouldn't be on it, but I think UMF can win the South.  Talent isn't the same as others but with 11 upperclassmen, UMF could do some damage in the NAC South.  I like the non-conference schedule so I think UMF could sneak into the NT if the South standings play right.  PIT is probably more likely but I feel much better about UMF getting 14 wins than I do Husson or Elms.

MMA?  Ugh.  See Elms.  Trust me, I have no problem with teams playing tough teams in non-conference play.  And sometimes it even makes sense to challenge yourself against a team that is likely to beat you.  But in the NAC, you not only do not need to do that, but you really shouldn't do that.  Because if you are playing teams in non-conference that are clearly better than you, you are also going to be playing teams in the NAC that are clearly better than you too.  So getting to 14 wins is really hard.  Off my soapbox, I'm not sure what to make of MMA.  The returning roster isn't that impressive looking at the chart.  But MMA is returning pretty much everybody and this past season did pretty well in the NAC for a team so young.  I'd think that's a lock for the NT this season.  But I'm not confident that they repeat the 7-9 conference mark.  And if they don't, I think the NT is off the table because I'd be surprised if they can do better than 5-5 in non-conference play.  But I might be missing something here and I probably am overlooking jazzcoq as a coach.  After all, he ran the table the season prior and took what seemed to bottom of the table team last season to a mid-range finish in the NAC.

Johnson State might be this year's Husson/Becker.  Ok,. probably not.  But I was pretty surprised to see that Johnson State measured quite favorably on the talent scale with UMF and MMA.  Of course talent ignores WE and Johnson State's is poor and the team is young so the IQ's are ugly.  A better comparison might be to Salem State -- a team that goes out and wins a bunch of games in non-conference play and is a bit of an asset to us as conference play begins.  I wouldn't have said this before running the numbers, but Johnson State just might make the PIT this season.  Not sure if the RPI will be good enough but I could see them winning a handful of games this season in conference play.

To be disagreeable with Bob, I'll say that Salem State gets one win in conference play.  They actually have the 2nd best team rebounding numbers.  That's the only nice thing I can say, so I'll let it at that.

Way too early predictions from me:

NORTH
Castleton 15-1
Becker 13-3
Elms 9-7
Lasell 9-7
Husson 3-13
Johnson State 3-13

SOUTH
Thomas 11-5
Mt. Ida 10-6
UMPI 9-7
UMF 7-9
MMA 6-10
Salem State 1-15

Can't argue with the Elms assessments at all.  Our post game is in rough shape and we'll struggle with rebounding again.  Making the NT is going to be one big challenge. Getting the right recruiting class in place will be crucial for this program to continue heading in the right direction.

Season #48  =  $70,000 Recruiting cash.

Season #49  =  $61,000

	Pos.	GPA	FG%	FT%	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	TOT
Gregory Williams	PG	2.09	48.0	66.1	22	70	1	28	1	12	81	63	49	39	69	40	475
Curtis White	SG	2.86	37.0	63.7	45	49	1	32	1	1	64	57	58	38	82	36	464
Bobby Anderson	SF	3.06	50.7	70.6	32	38	31	48	7	11	60	41	46	27	88	44	473
John Mertens	SF	3.85	65.4	59.9	45	46	41	36	18	37	13	26	49	56	64	34	465
Daniel Shaw	C	2.75	47.3	61.7	27	26	58	28	61	37	1	22	15	35	68	60	438
Average		2.92	49.7	64.4	34	45	26	34	17	19	43	41	43	39	74	42	463

High Potential                Average            Low Potential

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/27/allenbs.jpg/



Highs for Orbison are all high-high. 

My #3 ranked recruiting "class":
Charles Shelley:
athleticism: limited upside
speed: limited upside
rebounding: limited upside
shot blocking: big upside
low post moves: big upside
perimeter shooting: big upside
ball handling: limited upside
durability: big upside

Beginning Season #50

1.	Jack Stephens	Sr.	SG	Becker	61	58	18	62	4	78	85	62	51	87	98	64	B+	728
2.	Darrell Palmer	Sr.	PF	Mount Ida	53	46	72	58	52	91	4	32	27	65	80	78	B-	658
3.	Jeffrey Jost	Sr.	C	Thomas	59	32	95	56	90	81	22	21	32	65	71	31	B-	655
4.	Brian Nieves	Sr.	SF	Mount Ida	42	58	11	40	12	26	99	61	74	62	84	71	B	640
5.	Jonathan McCandles	Sr.	C	Castleton St.	54	26	78	54	71	49	3	14	30	91	98	63	B-	631
6.	Joshua Sander	Sr.	PG	Castleton St.	97	50	1	99	4	48	24	55	33	80	87	49	B	627
7.	Charlie Meikle	Sr.	PG	Husson	41	78	2	27	3	11	56	85	79	58	80	97	B+	617
8.	Jeffery Goins	Jr.	SF	Castleton St.	62	43	66	57	43	37	42	37	31	60	73	58	B+	609
9.	David Kersh	Sr.	PF	Elms	47	29	60	45	46	73	35	22	32	74	70	73	C+	606
10.	Edward Craven	Jr.	C	Castleton St.	52	38	93	50	67	45	1	22	32	70	75	59	C-	604
11.	Edward Hager	Jr.	SF	Thomas	80	38	29	86	15	53	43	43	61	36	71	47	C-	602
12.	Chad Charles	Sr.	SF	Elms	52	42	57	32	43	57	57	53	40	43	75	45	B-	596
13.	Eric Levan	Jr.	SG	Castleton St.	35	76	28	39	6	1	90	70	58	60	61	68	C+	592
14.	Shawn Purdy	Sr.	PG	Maine, Presque Isle	37	66	1	58	2	15	58	79	51	48	83	93	A-	591
15.	Julian Brown	Jr.	SG	Maine, Presque Isle	57	64	5	57	3	20	67	62	72	70	66	47	B	590
16.	Robert Galloway	So.	PF	Castleton St.	44	32	60	45	56	62	19	41	13	54	74	90	C-	590
17.	Keith Edgar	Jr.	PG	Thomas	50	83	1	53	3	18	73	78	70	39	73	43	C+	584
18.	Michael Schaeffer	Sr.	SF	Maine, Farmington	18	59	45	31	47	24	47	51	44	58	86	73	B-	583
19.	Bryan Pressman	Sr.	PF	Husson	53	45	61	52	53	53	23	33	32	47	65	65	A-	582
20.	Charles Shelley	Sr.	PF	Maine Maritime Academy	55	47	28	53	25	65	46	45	30	53	74	59	C-	580
21.	Donald Dunkley	Jr.	C	Thomas	37	22	95	47	74	51	10	30	24	58	80	51	B-	579
22.	Dave Netzer	Jr.	SF	Maine Maritime Academy	43	55	41	44	23	55	31	38	32	68	78	62	B+	570
23.	Robert Sim	Sr.	C	Thomas	53	11	86	46	96	69	2	12	27	54	73	39	C+	568
24.	Richard Gideon	Sr.	PG	Becker	47	68	1	28	5	7	69	73	73	60	80	57	A-	568
25.	Jerry Royce	Sr.	PG	Castleton St.	69	67	1	65	2	1	49	69	51	42	78	73	A-	567

PS. I post this crap so those of us that care can look back and see how were doing a few seasons from now. Anything I find that might be relative down the road or help us improve as a conference... goes here. Some of it may end up be wasted space... some might be very interesting or helpful 2-3 seasons from now.

Pre-Season All North Atlantic Conference Teams (Season 50)

First Team

Pos	School	Name	Yr.	Pos.	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	FT	TOT
PG	Thomas	Keith Edgar	Jr.	PG	50	83	1	53	3	18	72	77	70	39	72	43	C+	581
SG	Becker	Jack Stephens	Sr.	SG	61	58	18	62	4	77	85	62	51	87	98	64	B+	727
SF	Thomas	Edward Hager	Jr.	SF	80	38	29	86	15	53	43	43	61	36	70	47	C-	601
PF	Mount Ida	Darrell Palmer	Sr.	PF	53	46	72	58	52	91	4	32	27	65	80	78	B-	658
C	Thomas	Jeffrey Jost	Sr.	C	59	32	94	56	89	81	22	21	31	65	71	31	B-	652

Second Team

Pos	School	Name	Yr.	Pos.	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	FT	TOT
PG	Becker	James Palombo	Sr.	PG	56	52	1	58	5	15	64	82	76	64	72	21	B+	566
SG	Castleton State	Joshua Sander	Sr.	PG	97	50	1	99	4	48	24	55	33	80	87	49	B	627
SF	Castleton State	Jeffery Goins	Jr.	SF	62	42	66	57	43	37	42	37	31	60	73	58	B+	608
PF	Becker	Joseph Richards	Jr.	C	58	8	81	52	70	77	2	2	2	53	64	62	C	531
C	Thomas	Robert Sim	Sr.	C	52	11	86	46	96	69	2	12	27	54	72	39	C+	566

Third Team

Pos	School	Name	Yr.	Pos.	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	FT	TOT
PG	UMPI	Julian Brown	Jr.	SG	57	64	5	57	3	20	66	62	72	70	66	46	B	588
SG	Thomas	Robert Cuyler	Sr.	SG	50	77	1	43	6	6	94	81	50	52	73	32	B	565
SF	Elms	Chad Charles	Sr.	SF	52	42	56	32	43	57	57	53	40	43	75	45	B-	595
PF	Castleton State	Edward Craven	Jr.	C	52	37	93	50	67	45	1	22	32	70	75	59	C-	603
C	Becker	Gary Robinson	Sr.	C	39	18	95	35	99	63	2	17	14	54	70	49	B	555

Name	Yr.	Pos.	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	FT	TOT
Craig Kelley	So.	PF	27	42	44	25	25	38	24	32	51	42	65	37	C	452
Clinton Schweiger	Fr.	C	47	18	47	34	41	22	8	14	30	47	71	71	D+	450
Martin Paiz	Fr.	PF	47	39	64	50	40	36	10	26	18	27	69	58	B-	484
Arthur Leininger	Fr.	PG	40	53	1	49	1	4	25	43	24	36	74	65	D+	415

I'm following Mizzou's lead so ...

High Potential                Average            Low Potential

Because there is no better way to kick off another season of Allen D3 than me rambing about my team in a series of posts that nobody else cares about ...

Thomas Recruiting Season 50

Overall grade: C-

I wasn't too thrilled to get the Customer Support runaround with the glitch that caused me to blow almost $4k on recruits I couldn't get, but that really can't be used as an excuse for why I brought in a mediocre group of recruits.  The NAC provides me with tons of extra recruiting cash and with 4 open spots, losing $4k wasn't a big deal.  I did end up wasting a ton of cash, however.  In addition to the $4k already noted, I also spent another $4k going after recruits that got scooped by D1/D2 schools.  Really, in the case of all $8k wasted, I was going after recruits that were too good for Thomas.  Technically, they were available to me on my D3 screen.  But realistically, the players had high enough overall ratings that it was extremely unlikely that a D2 team wasn't going to reach after them and none of these players were local so I wasn't in any position to battle.  Going after these players was extremely risky at best and foolish at worst.  And in retrospect, I'm leaning toward foolish.  I could bemoan my luck, but it was really stupid to go after these guys and I ended up throwing more money down the drain than many schools had total recuriting dollars.

I ended up scouting less states than I normally would and I'm pretty sure I settled for some players that I should not have.  I think looking at the recruits one-by-one, they look ok.  But that is sort of a problem as well.  I am not going to rehash my lengthly posts from last season but I walked away from last season learning that while I had a team that had as much talent as just about any in D3 (top 10 in talent), I had a terrible team in that it wasn't put together well at all.  With the talent, it won quite a few games anyway.  But my top 10 talent was maybe a borderline top 20 team because the talent didn't fit together.  My offense was poor in that the guards couldn't pass.  My defense was poor because I didn't match up my players well for a zone defense.  The one thing that I really was hoping to get out of recruiting was talent that blended well.  I don't think I accomplished that at all.  And that's pretty discouraging.  I have enough talent that I shouldn't have to worry about making the NT as long as I do a half-decent job of scheduling.  But I really don't see how the recruits fit together in a way that will form a very good team.

So that said ...

Arthur Leininger: Potential is pretty good and he's probably my best recruit.  His athletism and speed are going to be slight liabilities against really good teams but I'm hoping it won't matter too much.  He should get to an 80 rating for defense so I think he should be a fine defender.  I'm crossing my fingers that he'll be ok on the offensive end.  Both his perimeter and passing ratings start at very low levels so while both are high-high in potential, the final result might still be pretty mediocre.  I feel like I'm really rolling the dice on Leininger and when I'm saying that about my best recruit, that's probably not a good sign.  Like I said earlier, my original goal in recruiting was to bring together pieces of a puzzle.  I don't think Leininger helps in that regard.  I have no idea what I have with him.  He might be a bench player if the the high-high only means 30 points in perimeter and passing.  If one takes off but not the other, I might have myself a good PG or a good SG ... but I don't know which just yet and probably won't for a couple of seasons which will make season 51 recruiting a bit interesting.  In other words, I might have exactly what caused problems last season.  Probably a pretty good player but maybe not a great fit.

The other thing about Leininger that I shouldn't ignore is that he has poor stamina.  With a zone, that isn't as bad as it otherwise would be.  However, my entire backcourt is stamina challenged, so when you factor in everybody, it probably is an issue.  It gave me pause but I still signed him.

Finally, Leininger knows both Flex and Zone.  He's probably going to play the most of my freshmen so that's a really nice thing.

Clinton Schweiger: I think maybe a bit less talented that Leininger but I actually feel better about Schweiger's spot on the team.  Similar to Leininger in that the speed and atleticism are going to be fine against most, but a weakness against elite.  The one thing that I believe might have caused problems with my defense last season is that my post players lacked speed and Schweiger will be much better than my current roster.  Nothing special since he starts at 18 and the potential is low-high.  But considering my top three post players average speed ratings of 22, this will be helpful.  On the defensive end, he should be solid.  The rebound rating should get close to 80, the defensive rating above 65, and the shot blocking will be above 60.  I'll need to get a bit lucky with high-high potential to have an excellent defender but at minimum I think he should be a good defensive asset.  On the offensive side, I'm not sure.  His low post is high/high but it starts from such a low point (22) that I'm not sure he's ever going to be much of a scorer and he won't have the dominant athleticism/speed to make up for a poor rating.

Schweiger is taking the redshirt this season so I hope to get three good seasons out of him.  I do think he can be a piece of the puzzle.  He'll be the defensive half of my post play ... I'll just need to recruit a good scorer to pair up next to him.


Martin Paiz: My kamikaze recruit.  I got lucky.  I signed Paiz (almost) blind as a transfer player.  I didn't have the money to scout him to see what potential he had.  I just crossed my fingers that he would have enough to be worth signing.  My thought process went like this: (1) I was a bit desparate.  I was running out of cash, didn't like what I saw in the states I scouted, and was afraid to spend money on other states because if I struck out, that would have made my money situation worse. (2) Paiz has very good starting ratings for a D3 prospect.  Even if he wasn't going to develop at all, he probably wouldn't be a complete disaster on the defensive end and I could keep his distribution to a minimum on the offensive end.  (3) Paiz was orignally signed and redshirted by bbunch at South Arkansas in D2.  bbunch is a veteran D2 coach that is running an A level program.  I made the assumption that Paiz was at least a halfway decent D2 player to be signed by South Arkansas.  Admitedly I was a bit concerned that he was redshirted and then cut.  But I figured there was a pretty good chance that even if Paiz was considered not to be good enough for an A level D2 team, he might be good enough for me at D3.  (4) South Arkansas also runs zone.  Paiz doesn't know the flex, but he comes to Thomas with a B- rating in the zone.  That further helped my thinking that at minimum I should have a player that is ok on the defense end.

All of that said, it was a big gamble.  He might have been maxed out already.  And even if not, the 27 work ethic is going to present some challenges.  But without many other options, I decided to roll the dice on Paiz instead of signing somebody else that I knew I would be unhappy having for four seasons.

After getting the Player Thoughts email, I think I'm happy.  Paiz has "big upside" in athleticism, speed, rebounding, perimeter, and passing.  Limited upside for defense and ball handling.  So of the six categories I was most concerned about (athleticism, speed, rebounding, defense, shot blocking, low post), three are high potential, one is low potential, and two are average.  That is very good considering I signed him blind.  I feel very good about him being a good defensive player.  He won't be great because the defensive and shot blocking categories are going to max out too early.  But he should be good.  On the offensive side, I'm nervous.  His low post will be below average.  I'm not sure I'll be able to do anything with the perimeter rating considering his poor work ethic and the poor starting point.  He might not be an offensive threat at all.

In the end, I'm pretty ticked at myself for signing him.  I was a bit handcuffed in not having any other great options, but I took a pretty big risk here.  And the risk worked about as well as I could have possibly imagined.  But even with that being the case, I think I run into a problem with him not fitting into the team concept at all.  I knew when I signed Schwieger that I was signing a good defender that probably can't score.   Well it looks like Paiz is the same player.  That should mean I'm running a pretty solid defensive team in the paint.  It also means I am not going to be able to score.  Which is bad both in that I can't score in the paint but that my opponents are going to be able to focus heavy on those perimeter players that can score.


Craig Kelley: Probably the recruit I'm most happy with.  Long-time NAC coaches might remember that I was a bit worried three seasons ago about having a lopsided class structure.  (I was looking at having 0 seniors, 4 juniors, 4 sophomores, 4 freshmen.)  I didn't like the idea of being so lopsided and wanted to get it more balanced.  I'm not all the way there yet, but Kelley brings things really close.  I ended up signing 2 senior transfers two season ago which started the process and then fiddled around with redshirts in a way that helped balance even more.  Signing Kelley as a sophomore juco player means I now have 3 seniors, 3 juniors, 2 sophomores, 3 freshmen, 1 redshirt freshman.  I really wanted to get a sophomore juco to get this balance so just by signing him, I feel good about him.

But Kelley also has an awful lot of potential.  With only three seasons and a so-so work ethic of 42, I'm not sure he's going to get there.  The one negative that really stands out is the 25 defense rating and only has average room for gowth.  But he also has 6 skill categories of high potential.  He's a really well balanced player and while I'm not sure he will be a good PF, I think he can be a SF and possibly even a backup guard.  The passing rating is his only low potential one, but it is already at 51.  The ball handing is high potential and should get to 50.  That isn't a great guard, but not a bad guy to have 4th on the depth chart if I get into foul trouble.  (It's much better than what I often have resorted to having.)

The other nice thing about Kelley is that at least short term, he helps solve my backup SF problem.  Dustin Wills is supposed to be my backup SF and while I love his potential, he isn't there yet.  Not even close.  So Kelley will be a nice stopgap backup while I wait for Willis to develop.

Ultimately, I'm not expecting much out of Kelley with just the three seasons.  But he really does fill some voids and probably is the best recruit I signed in terms of thinking big picture and how he fits into the concept of "team".


Overall Grade: As indicated at the beginning C-.  I lose points for (1) wasting money, (2) Hail Mary in signing Paiz, (3) signing redudant players in Schweiger and Paiz that will likely cause some problems for three seasons.  Kelley is a good signing considering my objectives and Leininger might be.  But I have a hard time rewarding myself for Leininger because I'm not positive if I signed my future starting PG or SG.  I signed four pretty good players.  But with NAC recruiting monies, so many open spots, and A+ prestige, I should be doing better than just signing "pretty good players".

THOMAS TEAM OUTLOOK SEASON 50

Team Offense: Flex
Team Defense: 2-3 Zone

Likely Starting Lineup, (Season 49 Stats)
PG: Keith Edgar, Jr (0 GS, 7.5 pt, 3.0 ast, 39.4% FG3)
SG: Robert Cuyler, Sr (33 GS, 14.4 pt, 48.4% FG3)
SF: Edward Hager, Jr (0 GS, 3.5 pt, 2.5 reb)
PF: Jeffrey Jost, Sr (33 GS, 8.5 pt, 7.0 reb, 1.7 blk, 54.8% FG)
C: Robert Sim, Sr (0 GS, 5.8 pt, 6.2 reb, 1.8 blk)

1st guard off the bench: Columbus Kummer, So (1 pt, 0.6 ast)
1st post off the bench: Donald Dunkley, Jr (2.6 pt, 5.2 reb, 1.2 blk)


While Thomas claims to never rebuild and only to reload, season 50 in Allen is likely to be a rebuilding season for Thomas as three new faces are introduced into the starting lineup.  I believe Thomas has a starting lineup that rivals any program in Division 3 - the question will be how many minutes I can get out of my starters when none of them have good stamina ratings.

The wildcard in the starting lineup is Edward Hager.  On paper, Hager seems plenty capable of entering the starting lineup, however his statistics over his first two seasons on the court at Thomas have been quite disappointing.  Hager hasn't been able to score or rebound and the Thomas zone seems to prevent him from accumulating any steals despite his 86 defensive rating.  Hager's ratings suggest he can do much more and hopefully this is the season where Hager finally puts it all together.  His ratings are well balanced  for a SF and he still has plenty of room for growth.  While his speed rating is maxed at a subpar 38, he still has room for growth in every other category and still has big upside in shot blocking, low post moves, and is the one Thomas starer than can raise his stamina to a high level.

Edgar and Cuyler should form the a backcourt that will make its claim as the finest in the North Atlantic.  Becker's duo of Palombo and Stephens will likely reign supreme but on the offensive end of the court there might not any finer than Edgar and Cuyler.  Edgar is one of the best distributors of the ball in NAC and Cuyler is one of the conference's top shooters from behind the arc.  Both are somewhat limited defensively so the hope will be that they score more points than they give up.  As a senior, Cuyler has limited room for growth but may still see some slight gains as the season progresses.  Edgar, on the other hand, may very well blossom as he is introduced into the starting lineup for the first time.  Scouts claim that Edgar has room for growth in both speed and defense and on the offensive side of the equation see big upside in his shooting, ball handling, and passing.  Off the bench will be the untested Columbus Kummer.  Kummer is likely too young to be counted on the minutes he will be expected to provide this season.  Kummer still has plenty of room for growth, but appears to have no desire to improve his defensive game.  And on the offensive side, Kummer seems to be focused almost exclusively on his own scoring.  While Kummer has some room left for improvement in his passing, he is unlikely to be the point guard envisioned when Thomas offered him a scholarship.  And when he takes charge of the offense when giving Edgar a blow, there is substantial risk that Thomas' flex offense will turn into Kummer first, Kummer second, and the rest can rebound to give Kummer additional shots if needed.

Hager joins the Twin Towers of Jeffrey Jost and Robert Sim along the baseline in Thomas' zone defense.  Both Jost and Sim are finished products and as expected to dominate the interior defense this upcoming season.  Each has liabilities in guarding their man but both have exceptional rebounding and shot blocking capabilities.  Opponents will struggle to get clean looks and they will be lucky to get second chances if they miss.  One of the defining points in Thomas' season will be how well Hager integrates with Jost and Sim.  Hager brings defensive talent that the other two lack; however, Hager is a weak rebounder and horrible shot blocker that might turn the Twin Towers into the Terrible Trio.  Thomas could turn the Twin Towers into the Triple Towers if/when they decide to throw Donald Dunkley into the mix.  Dunkley averaged 5 points and a block a game in limited minutes as a sophomore and still has some room for growth in his game.