Kyle Neptune addresses reporters after Villanova's 70-50 loss at St. John's on Wednesday. (Photo: Aaron Bracy)
By AARON BRACY
January 26, 2024
Big5Hoops.com
Very early in the first half on Wednesday night at Madison Square Garden, Villanova’s Eric Dixon and Tyler Burton each dove headfirst with reckless abandon toward a loose ball trickling at the feet of a St. John’s player.
As I watched the play unfold from my courtside press row seat, I cringed a bit. It was dangerous. Thankfully, nobody got hurt. The players grasped at the ball, and the officials whistled for a tie-up and went to the possession arrow.
That play was classic Villanova basketball. Hustle. Heart. Determination. Fearlessness. Dixon and Burton left everything on the floor.
Effort? Your darn right the Wildcats were giving effort. Playing hard? You bet your butt.
You don’t go barreling into someone headfirst for a basketball if you’re not giving 100 percent. I mean, who even does that anymore really? Give Dixon and Burton and the Wildcats credit for this, at least.
But the storyline after St. John’s handed the Wildcats a dominating 70-50 defeat that dropped them to 11-8 overall and 4-4 in the Big East was that Villanova got out-efforted. Coach Kyle Neptune brought it up afterward.
“I thought they played harder,” Neptune said.
In addition to Villanova’s 11 turnovers, Neptune pointed to St. John’s 15-5 edge on the offensive glass as an example.
“I thought that was the difference in the game,” he said.
The theme was echoed by TJ Bamba.
“They played harder than us,” Bamba said. “They punked us. Enough said. It’s that simple. We got punked on the glass.”
I have been covering sports for a long time. Been in countless press conferences and postgame locker rooms. I often hear players and coaches say they just need to play harder or give more effort. Sometimes, it’s true. In this case, the Wildcats’ loss had very little to nothing to do with effort. (I wrote as much in Wednesday’s game column.)
Villanova played hard. Hustled. Played determined. Played with heart. Played fearlessly.
The Wildcats gave effort.
The Red Storm have beaten up everybody on the offensive glass this season, ranking No. 5 in the country in that category through Wednesday. The offensive rebounding disparity had more to do with St. John’s skillset than Villanova’s lack of effort, and I don’t even count five offensive rebounds the Red Storm grabbed when the outcome was no longer in doubt. (Same thing with two Wildcats turnovers.)
For me, the problem on Wednesday night – and in every loss this season – has been that the Wildcats are not constructed to make 3-point shots, which is an essential in today’s game.
—
Now, before going any further, let’s level-set. Villanova is playing in arguably the toughest league in the country. The Wildcats currently are an NCAA tournament team. The situation on the Main Line is far from bleak or hopeless.
But big-time sports operate in a deficit-mindset and what-have-you-done-for-me-lately mentality. That’s part of the deal when signing up for this thing. Don’t like it? Plenty of openings on rosters at the Division III level for players, and there or the high school level for coaches. That’s not to say anyone on Villanova is complaining, because they have not, but just stating that big-time scrutiny is part of the package with big-time athletics.
Fans want results, and want them now. Understandable. And Villanova, or any program for that matter, should consider itself lucky to have fans who care so much. I think listening to and respecting fans’ passionate feedback is important, and it is up to administrators, coaches and players to evaluate things honestly, but rationally and void of emotion to determine what’s wrong and how, if possible, to fix it.
—
Others, like me, also can provide insight that is void of the passion of fans. That isn’t to say that my insight is any better, just that there isn’t emotional investment tied to it.
So, here’s my level-headed, in-depth look at Villanova.
–What’s wrong? Villanova is not a good 3-point shooting team. The Wildcats hit on a season-worst 16 percent (4 of 25) from long range against St. John’s. Through Wednesday, Villanova ranked 228th in the country in 3-point percentage at 32.6 percent. In their eight defeats, the Wildcats are even worse, shooting 27.8 percent (66 of 237) from distance.
–Why is this a problem? The obvious point is that not making shots from the arc means not getting points. But the issue with misfiring so much from downtown is so much bigger than just losing precious points.
Let’s start with floor spacing. Without reliable 3-point threats, defenders can sag off their opponents and create less space for the likes of Dixon on the block, or playmakers like point guard Mark Armstrong trying to find gaps in the defense. If you watched the UConn game, you saw how Dixon was hit with a flurry of double-teams quickly and often. Why? There’s not much concern about leaving Villanova’s perimeter players open for 3-pointers.
Another huge problem with missing so many 3-pointers is they often lead to long rebounds, which lead to runouts. Give Big East athletes quick transitions and you’re making it next-to-impossible to play defense. It could lead to easy fastbreak points, or could just not allow your team to get set and match up the way you’d like. Or, quite simply, it might just mean you don’t have a couple of extra seconds to catch your breath and reset. For any of these reasons, long rebounds off 3-point misses put a strain on the defense.
–Can this be fixed? Maybe a little. But the numbers are the numbers. Transfers Hakim Hart (Maryland), Burton (Richmond) and Bamba (Washington State) had career 3-point percentages of 31.6 percent, 32.8 and 38.5, respectively, before coming to the Main Line. At Villanova, they are shooting 31.4 percent, 29.4 and 35.1. So, slightly lower, but not significantly. In other words, they are what they are. And, by the way, I think they all are excellent basketball players with the ability to attack the glass, defend, score inside and do the little things that has distinguished Villanova from others. But they are not excellent 3-point shooters. That much was on paper before joining Villanova.
But there is some hope here for the Wildcats. Brendan Hausen is a sharpshooter. He started slow this season but has come on of late. He easily leads Villanova at 39.8 percent from the arc, which still ranks eighth in the Big 5 among players who have a decent amount of attempts. Hausen needs more minutes. He’s a shooter. Shooters need shots. I get that Villanova will be sacrificing defense and rebounding with Hausen in the lineup, but I’d give him starters’ minutes and take my chances. Currently, Hausen is averaging 16.8 minutes and Burton 25.4. I’d flop those two.
Not only will Hausen help Villanova score more points, but, as I said before, he is going to open up the spacing and give the other Wildcats more room to operate. In conjunction with more minutes for Hausen, I’d get Mark Armstrong on the floor much more. He’s seventh in minutes for the Wildcats. I’d move him up to second in minutes, behind only Dixon. Armstrong is Villanova’s most electric playmaker. There will be some growing pains with turnovers, but I think he’d more than make up for it with points and assists.
–What about Neptune? Neptune has taken heat for much of his two-year tenure. Following in Jay Wright’s footsteps never was going to be easy for anyone. I have preached patience with Neptune and still will. One thing about coaching: You always look better when your players are making shots. At present, Villanova does not have those players. It is up to Neptune and his staff to find them. Fairly, I think any new coach needs two or three recruiting classes to have a chance of putting a stamp on the program. Whether it’s my suggestions, or someone else’s, I do think there is a large enough sample size to see that continuing to have 30 percent 3-point shooters repeatedly firing 3-pointers is not a recipe for success. The roster is the roster. But adapting to the roster’s strengths is on Neptune and his staff.
–What about the NIL? If there’s one truism in sports, it’s that money can’t buy championships. If so, the New York Yankees would win the World Series every year. Villanova reportedly has a hefty NIL (Name, Image and Likeness) program and has nicely compensated transfers, perhaps thinking that these blue-chippers would be a quick fix to return to the Wildcats to prominence. If anything, I think this season is showing that the tried-and-true method of team building still is best. A good team is more than just a collection of good players. A team needs to be nurtured, built. It takes time, care and, yes, patience. Remember when the Philadelphia Eagles assembled the Dream Team? Didn’t work. The best way to build an NFL team is through the draft while supplementing with free agents. I think the same thing will be true in this wild, new world of college hoops. High school recruits mixed in with high-impact transfers is the way to build and sustain success, I think.
–What about the fanbase? The NIL/transfer portal world in which college basketball now operates only has ratcheted up the pressure on programs like Villanova. Now, not only are fans putting their hearts and souls into their beloved programs, they also are putting their hard-earned money. In many cases, like at Villanova, lots of money. They want a return on their investment. That’s just good business, something these big boosters know very well. At Villanova, this is where I think Jay Wright comes in. No one is more beloved on the Main Line than Wright. I think it will be Wright who can soothe the largest donors, and I’d guess he already has been doing so. His role, I think, would be similar to a financial planner who helps nervous investors stay calm and focus on the big picture and the long term rather than the short-term fluctuations of the stock market. A 100-point daily drop in the S&P 500 doesn’t mean withdraw your investments. Keep an eye on things, but stay calm. Similarly, a 20-point loss at St. John’s requires evaluation but doesn’t signal panic mode.
–What else can help? Something that has surprised me, and I said it publicly on Twitter/X in response to a Collin Gillespie Tweet, is some of the criticism of Villanova from former players. Like fans, I believe former Wildcats can express themselves however they see fit. I am not the opinion police. But if I were athletic director Mark Jackson and Wright, who will carry the most weight in this conversation, I would put my arm around the former players and ask them to refrain from criticizing the program. Their words carry much weight with Nova Nation. If Gillespie is questioning things, fans will feel more empowered to do so. Fans probably will do so either way, but the support of former players likely would subdue the general criticism some. At the very least, it would show a unified front throughout the program. Again, I am not the opinion police. Gillespie and the others can do what they want and say what they think. They are adults. This is just my two cents on what I think can help Villanova.
–Final word? I have covered basketball games longer than any Villanova player has been alive. I would like to think that I have earned some credibility with what I am saying here. I carefully choose my words. I am not a hot-take journalist. Admittedly, I do not have all of the answers to solve all of the problems, either. I am open to others’ thoughts and perspectives. My suggestions might fall flat, or be completely wrong. They are opinions. Opinions that I would like to think are backed with fact, expertise and experience, but opinions nonetheless. The bottom line is this: It doesn’t really matter what I say, or what fans say or what former players say. What matters most is that whatever the current administrators, coaches and players decide to do works on the court.
—
Aaron Bracy has been covering Philadelphia sports since 1996. His byline regularly appears on Associated Press stories. Big5Hoops.com is his second website dedicated to Philadelphia college basketball. Follow Bracy on X: @Aaron_Bracy and like his Facebook and Instagram pages.
—
Saint Joseph’s moves atop Big 5 rankings
(Through games Jan. 25)
1. Saint Joseph’s (13-6, 3-3 Atlantic 10), up 1 spot
2. Villanova (11-8, 4-4 Big East), down 1
3. Drexel (14-7, 7-1 CAA), down 1
4. La Salle (10-9, 1-5 Atlantic 10), no change
5. Penn (9-9, 1-2 Ivy), up 1
6. Temple (8-12, 1-6 American), down 1
—
St. Joe’s Reynolds leads Big 5 scoring
(Through games Jan. 25)
1. Erik Reynolds II, St. Joe’s, 18.2
2. Clark Slajchert, Penn, 17.4
3. Hysier Miller, Temple, 16.1
4. Eric Dixon, Villanova, 15.0
5. Khalil Brantley, La Salle, 14.6
T6. Jhamir Brickus, La Salle, 14.2
T6. Tyler Perkins, Penn, 14.2
8. Justin Moore, Drexel, 13.1
9. Amari Williams, Drexel, 12.5
10. Jahlil White, Temple, 11.9
—
Drexel’s Williams tops Big 5 in rebounding
1. Amari Williams, Drexel, 8.0
T2. Rasheer Fleming, St. Joe’s, 7.4
T2. Nick Spinoso, Penn, 7.4
4. Tyler Burton, Villanova, 7.2
5. Eric Dixon, Villanova, 6.5
6. Jahlil White, Temple, 6.4
7. Sam Hofman, Temple, 6.3
8. Daeshon Shepherd, La Salle, 6.2
9. Steve Settle III, Temple, 5.9
10. Jordan Riley, Temple, 5.8