Again, they were down three starters in both those games. They have some talent, but no depth to overcome being down 3 starters. Of course the complexion of any team is going to change if 60% of the expected starting lineup is missing for nearly the entire season. Enough to go from "had some promise" to "train wreck." Of course Groce being in over his head plays a part as well, but there was certainly some talent to hope on, at least. Not that any of this matters in the least, just didn't get why that was such an outrageous claim. No one in the modern college game can be down three starters and be expected to win. He knows this, he's just being a toolbox. And to be clear, all I thought was that we had a shot at the tournament. Yeah, the entire complexion of the team changes if Hill doesn't have to do everything (run point most of the time, be the primary rebounder, play the 4 against bigger guys constantly). He's got more energy to devote to scoring, you have an actual inside presence with Thorne and Black on defense, another guard on the floor who can shoot a little in Abrams, who knows how things end up. Certainly not as a sub .500 team overall.