Thanks for taking the time to do this. Very interesting stats. I was disappointed in Barnes this year but don't want him fired. I do, however, wonder if he can get us back to the Final 4. Most coaches on the list have been there and won it all.
We didn't get what we've paid for the last couple years. I actually would have settled for "not making the tournament" if that's what it takes to make some serious changes to scheme, motivation, assistant coach hirings, recruiting, etc.
I am honestly surprised to see how well Izzo's teams perform. I rarely hear Izzo mentioned in the same light as coach K, Roy Williams and even calhoun, and Boheim. He is one hell of a good coach. He is great at developing the local kids and does a good job of getting kids to East Lansing. If i had a choice of places to spend my 4 years, Lansing would be last among those 12 destinations.
Izzo gets good players, not great ones. Those good ones stay around for 3-4 years, get coached,they develop, and they learn the system. Teams with juniors/seniors win games when it matters.
As much as I truly loathe John Calipari, I think your treatment of him is not fair. The universities were forced to vacate the wins, not Cal. Cal was neither named nor indicted of any wrongdoing in either of the NCAA's investigations. Of course he knew what was going on...but until he is found guilty of wrongdoing, I don't know why he should be penalized. Also, Bruce Pearl registers at least a 2.00 for his D1 career, and at least a 2.40 for his time at Tennessee, depending on how the Vols finish this year. Pat Summitt OTOH...5.11
My opinion is that not making the tournament should count as a negative - not just zero. It is much, much worse to not even make the tourney than get knocked out in round one. See UCLA this year.
^I was speculating. I thought it was obvious in the context. But I'm not sure what individual baseless beliefs such as mine have to do with facts and due process. Cal has never even been as much as accused of any wrongdoing by people who have much more intimate knowledge of the ordeal that we do. The NCAA has gone to the extent to send formal letters to him to inform him that he has done nothing wrong.
Yes, I know you were just speculating Calipari knew what was going on, but you represented that speculation as your honest belief. If you honestly believe Calipari was aware of the situation at UMass and at Memphis, why wouldn't you evaluate his performance accordingly? Calipari doesn't have a vested financial interest in your opinion about his relative worth as a coach, so who cares if the NCAA hasn't found him guilty after affording him due process?
Can it not be my honest belief while also speculation? Cal is like that phantom bad smell in the office; you don't know if it's a fart or the air handler or the garbage...it just stinks, and as it turns out, it is more fun to blame it on a person who looks like they might be a phantom farter.
Yes, AstroVol, it can be both honest belief and speculation. Note that I said "if" in my original post. You didn't. I just don't understand why one who has an honest belief in something demands that we eliminate the same believed fact when opining on other somewhat related matters. If you think Calipari knew what was going on with Camby and Evans, why do you insist we should not carry the school's penalties over to him when discussing the results of his tenure at those schools? That makes no sense to me.
Because what I believe does not constitute a burden of proof. Punishment should be handed out based on what can be proven with evidence. My reasons are neither rational nor void of stereotypes.
"I actually would have settled for "not making the tournament" if that's what it takes to make some serious changes to scheme, motivation, assistant coach hirings, recruiting, etc." There's at least one in every ******* crowd; I hope my team loses a few more games so there'll be some changes made.
"There's at least one in every ******* crowd; I hope my team loses a few more games so there'll be some changes made." Not exactly what I stated, because we could have had a two-or-three-game swing pretty easily with our close wins and made the NIT. It wouldn't have taken a complete tank job. And serious changes to personnel, scheme, motivation, etc. haven't seemed to hurt Syracuse, Kentucky, and a few others that are still dancing.
