PHXCATS wrote:Smart has national equity. He made a final four. Miller my has conference equity. If Miller wins the title then misses the tournament the next three years I will still be super happy.
How much longer do you give Miller to make a final four? You can't keep him 25 years with no final fours can you?
Miller has the program ready to be final four favorites every year. He has to break through. There are no more excuses.
And even with dwill blowing up and being the #2 pick there is still zero excuses for not making the tournament in 2012. None at all
We'll revisit this in 18 years. My money is on Sean Miller.
So I guess Kevin Parrom getting shot in late September, right before practice began doesn't qualify as an excuse. Ok. Instead of calling it an excuse, I'll call it a reason Arizona didn't make the tournament in 2012. But hey, that's Miller's fault according to you. Shouldn't travel home to New York City in the middle of school to visit your dying mother. Miller should've seen that coming a mile away. Stupid coach.
PHXCATS wrote:Smart has national equity. He made a final four. Miller my has conference equity. If Miller wins the title then misses the tournament the next three years I will still be super happy.
How much longer do you give Miller to make a final four? You can't keep him 25 years with no final fours can you?
Miller has the program ready to be final four favorites every year. He has to break through. There are no more excuses.
And even with dwill blowing up and being the #2 pick there is still zero excuses for not making the tournament in 2012. None at all
I'm not sure I believe you'd be happy if we won a NC and didn't make the tournament for 3 years. You're much too hypercritical to be that tolerant. Purdue kept Gene Keady for a very long time and guess what? He never made a Final Four. Juxtaposing different years, and coaches and tournament results is all fine and dandy but to me it's unfair to compare things that really can't be compared.
Self has lost in the E8 five times. It's always damn hard to take that next step. We're all pulling for Sean to get there. Are we willing to wait well into his second decade at AZ? Not sure.
I am completely flabbergasted that ANYONE would seriously want to consider replacing CSM. Pretty much every other PAC-12 school would love to have our record under CSM. For any team, reaching a FF is a crapshoot, with the single elimination format. I, for one, do not want to see CSM leave Arizona.
BBQ wildcat wrote:I am completely flabbergasted that ANYONE would seriously want to consider replacing CSM. Pretty much every other PAC-12 school would love to have our record under CSM. For any team, reaching a FF is a crapshoot, with the single elimination format. I, for one, do not want to see CSM leave Arizona.
I'll take some flak for this, but Altman is the best coach in the Pac. His steady march to the FF last season, over seven seasons in Eugene, was one of the more impressive feats the conference has seen the past decade. He's won two straight Pac titles and will arguably have the best freshman class in the league for 2018-19. He's got that program knocking on the door of elite status, and it's not as though he inherited a program with that status.
BBQ wildcat wrote:I am completely flabbergasted that ANYONE would seriously want to consider replacing CSM. Pretty much every other PAC-12 school would love to have our record under CSM. For any team, reaching a FF is a crapshoot, with the single elimination format. I, for one, do not want to see CSM leave Arizona.
I'll take some flak for this, but Altman is the best coach in the Pac. His steady march to the FF last season, over seven seasons in Eugene, was one of the more impressive feats the conference has seen the past decade. He's won two straight Pac titles and will arguably have the best freshman class in the league for 2018-19. He's got that program knocking on the door of elite status, and it's not as though he inherited a program with that status.
No flak from me regarding Altman......he's first rate.
Miller, however, is not chopped liver. Despite not grabbing the Holy Brass Ring of a Final Four he has had an outstanding run at AZ. My concern with Miller is how well he recruits going forward without Book & the $$$$$$$$$$$. Unless the internal and/or NCAA investigation shows Miller was involved, or knew about, Books transgressions I would sit tight with Miller for at least two full recruiting classes following the conclusion of the FBI/Shoe company fiasco. If Millers recruiting falls off a cliff for two consecutive classes AFTER the FBI thing is over then I would crank up the Flight Tracker.
Last edited by dmjcat on Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BBQ wildcat wrote:I am completely flabbergasted that ANYONE would seriously want to consider replacing CSM. Pretty much every other PAC-12 school would love to have our record under CSM. For any team, reaching a FF is a crapshoot, with the single elimination format. I, for one, do not want to see CSM leave Arizona.
I'll take some flak for this, but Altman is the best coach in the Pac. His steady march to the FF last season, over seven seasons in Eugene, was one of the more impressive feats the conference has seen the past decade. He's won two straight Pac titles and will arguably have the best freshman class in the league for 2018-19. He's got that program knocking on the door of elite status, and it's not as though he inherited a program with that status.
I think Altman is due some great respect. And he has showered Arizona with mutual respect, calling us without question the premiere program. But let's not dismiss the sexual assault charges that happened not just once, but multiple times with Altman at the helm. His handling of the transfer of the kid from Wyoming was borderline a firing offense. If Altman didn't have some serious equity, he might have been gone, especially in the current political climate.
But I'm not ready to call him better than Miller. It was Miller who out-coached Altman in the conference tournament finals last year. Oregon had the better team. A veteran team. And it was Miller who engineered an incredible victory with a very young team that was also without Ray Smith from start to finish.
And even in Arizona's down years under Miller, we still make the tournament. Doesn't look like the Ducks are headed anywhere but the NIT. Stay tuned.
BBQ wildcat wrote:I am completely flabbergasted that ANYONE would seriously want to consider replacing CSM. Pretty much every other PAC-12 school would love to have our record under CSM. For any team, reaching a FF is a crapshoot, with the single elimination format. I, for one, do not want to see CSM leave Arizona.
I'll take some flak for this, but Altman is the best coach in the Pac. His steady march to the FF last season, over seven seasons in Eugene, was one of the more impressive feats the conference has seen the past decade. He's won two straight Pac titles and will arguably have the best freshman class in the league for 2018-19. He's got that program knocking on the door of elite status, and it's not as though he inherited a program with that status.
I think Altman is due some great respect. And he has showered Arizona with mutual respect, calling us without question the premiere program. But let's not dismiss the sexual assault charges that happened not just once, but multiple times with Altman at the helm. His handling of the transfer of the kid from Wyoming was borderline a firing offense. If Altman didn't have some serious equity, he might have been gone, especially in the current political climate.
But I'm not ready to call him better than Miller. It was Miller who out-coached Altman in the conference tournament finals last year. Oregon had the better team. A veteran team. And it was Miller who engineered an incredible victory with a very young team that was also without Ray Smith from start to finish.
And even in Arizona's down years under Miller, we still make the tournament. Doesn't look like the Ducks are headed anywhere but the NIT. Stay tuned.
I guess I just see Altman as a "does more with less" guy. Oregon, until very recently, was not a program that could draw elite talent. Dillon Brooks, Jordan Bell, Chris Boucher...these weren't guys regarded as elite players. Really only Tyler Dorsey was someone regarded as a 4/5-level talent. You have to give Altman credit for putting the right pieces together and building Pac champions, even while only drawing 3 and 4 star talent.
BBQ wildcat wrote:I am completely flabbergasted that ANYONE would seriously want to consider replacing CSM. Pretty much every other PAC-12 school would love to have our record under CSM. For any team, reaching a FF is a crapshoot, with the single elimination format. I, for one, do not want to see CSM leave Arizona.
I'll take some flak for this, but Altman is the best coach in the Pac. His steady march to the FF last season, over seven seasons in Eugene, was one of the more impressive feats the conference has seen the past decade. He's won two straight Pac titles and will arguably have the best freshman class in the league for 2018-19. He's got that program knocking on the door of elite status, and it's not as though he inherited a program with that status.
I think Altman is due some great respect. And he has showered Arizona with mutual respect, calling us without question the premiere program. But let's not dismiss the sexual assault charges that happened not just once, but multiple times with Altman at the helm. His handling of the transfer of the kid from Wyoming was borderline a firing offense. If Altman didn't have some serious equity, he might have been gone, especially in the current political climate.
But I'm not ready to call him better than Miller. It was Miller who out-coached Altman in the conference tournament finals last year. Oregon had the better team. A veteran team. And it was Miller who engineered an incredible victory with a very young team that was also without Ray Smith from start to finish.
And even in Arizona's down years under Miller, we still make the tournament. Doesn't look like the Ducks are headed anywhere but the NIT. Stay tuned.
I guess I just see Altman as a "does more with less" guy. Oregon, until very recently, was not a program that could draw elite talent. Dillon Brooks, Jordan Bell, Chris Boucher...these weren't guys regarded as elite players. Really only Tyler Dorsey was someone regarded as a 4/5-level talent. You have to give Altman credit for putting the right pieces together and building Pac champions, even while only drawing 3 and 4 star talent.
I see Miller trying to build and compete for a title every year. Altman's plan is to go with players who take longer to develop and stay longer. So they contend every 2-4 years. It's debatable which plan is better. Oregon's Final Four team certainly benefitted from getting two transfers who were granted a 6th year of eligibility. I mean, Dylan Ennis was 24 years old competing against 18-19 year olds.
zonagrad wrote:I see Miller trying to build and compete for a title every year. Altman's plan is to go with players who take longer to develop and stay longer. So they contend every 2-4 years. It's debatable which plan is better. Oregon's Final Four team certainly benefitted from getting two transfers who were granted a 6th year of eligibility. I mean, Dylan Ennis was 24 years old competing against 18-19 year olds.
Maybe. But I'm not sure Altman could've even been a player recruiting guys like Aaron Gordon, Stanley Johnson, or DeAndre Ayton. So it's not as though Altman was saying, "yeah, I could probably have Aaron Gordon, but instead, I'm gonna go with Jordan Bell." The Ducks have only very recently arrived as a national recruiting player. Remember Kyle Wiltjer? Think Altman didn't want him? I mean, I'm not even sure Oregon spent much time on him once UK started showing interest. But these last few years, Altman has scraped and clawed his way into the upper tier of recruiting. Their '18 class is better than ours. Yes, it's come as a result of the FBI scandal, but it also has to do with Oregon's steady rise as a program. Altman deserves the bulk of credit for that.
Would you rather have Miller's last five seasons or Altman's?
zonagrad wrote:I see Miller trying to build and compete for a title every year. Altman's plan is to go with players who take longer to develop and stay longer. So they contend every 2-4 years. It's debatable which plan is better. Oregon's Final Four team certainly benefitted from getting two transfers who were granted a 6th year of eligibility. I mean, Dylan Ennis was 24 years old competing against 18-19 year olds.
Maybe. But I'm not sure Altman could've even been a player recruiting guys like Aaron Gordon, Stanley Johnson, or DeAndre Ayton. So it's not as though Altman was saying, "yeah, I could probably have Aaron Gordon, but instead, I'm gonna go with Jordan Bell." The Ducks have only very recently arrived as a national recruiting player. Remember Kyle Wiltjer? Think Altman didn't want him? I mean, I'm not even sure Oregon spent much time on him once UK started showing interest. But these last few years, Altman has scraped and clawed his way into the upper tier of recruiting. Their '18 class is better than ours. Yes, it's come as a result of the FBI scandal, but it also has to do with Oregon's steady rise as a program. Altman deserves the bulk of credit for that.
Would you rather have Miller's last five seasons or Altman's?
Good question. We have more conference titles, which I value and I think are important. I doubt Oregon makes the tourney this season. If that happened in Tucson, UA fans would be apoplectic. Plus the rape scandals (two of them) sure paint Altman in a bad light. Miller took some flak with the Pitts assault. But I really don't know what he or the athletic department could have done. With Altman, it appeared he was aware of the situation and they didn't follow the rules.
Hard to forecast next season based the current recruiting picture and expected returning rosters. We'll see how the FBI thing plays out. The damage may or may not be over.
I am not ready to get rid of miller.
But I sure wish he would adjust to his roster.
Many people are posting that we have three subpar starters defense wise.
But millers D seems to require at least one guy like AG or RHJ to work well.
I'm not calling for a zone but I would love a scheme where our 4/5 are not above the arc constantly.
I also feel that with the trend of more threes and deeper threes that the pack line will become less and less effective
Well, for the sake of conversation, let's assume the FBI thing has no further impact. Our '18 class remains intact, and we begin recruiting well again for '19.
I still don't think it's clear that Miller is the better choice. This isn't a knock on Miller, by the way. It's really meant more as high praise for Altman. I'd say Altman is among the top 5 to 10 coaches in the game. Is Miller?
I rate Altman very high in only one area.
He can turn 5 strangers into a team faster than anyone else I know. But that does not make up for how he handles the rapes.
Are we counting this season? Because at the moment Arizona has a definitive edge. So I'm lost why Altman has such a considerable edge. In the last five years, Arizona is 71-19 in the Pac. Over the same period Oregon is 65-25. So Arizona is averaging one more win per season.
Last edited by zonagrad on Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Are we counting this season? Because at the moment Arizona has a definitive edge. So I'm lost why Altman has such a considerable edge. In the last five years, Arizona is 71-69 in the Pac. Over the same period Oregon is 65-25. So Arizona is averaging one more win per season.
I assume you mean 71-19
I am not counting this year.
And final four, that and national tiles are all that matter to me from here on out.
2018 Bear Down Wildcats Conference Championship Challenge Champion
Altman has more PAC-12 losses in his 7 1/2 years than Miller has in his 8 1/2 years. (47 vs Miller's 40)
Miller has a better overall win % in his PAC-12 years (76.8% vs Altman's 72.0%)
Miller has a better PAC-12 win % (74.4% vs Altman's 65.9%)
Miller has a better career win% (75.3% vs Altman's 65.6%)
So I just can't see how anyone can say Altman is a better coach, even with the final 4.
PHXCATS wrote:
And final four, that and national tiles are all that matter to me from here on out.
Well, if you only look at final fours and national titles as a measure of success, I would have to say that you are a moron.
With all due respect, of course.
For the coach after Miller
Come to Arizona where we are okay with you not meeting goals and expectations as long as you have a good conference record
You realize that people who cover and follow college basketball closely appreciate the incredible career Miller has posted so far at Arizona? Then there are those who have unrealistic expectations and don't bother to examine the big picture and who usually voice their moronic opinions the loudest. Take a guess which group you're in.
PHXCATS wrote:
And final four, that and national tiles are all that matter to me from here on out.
Well, if you only look at final fours and national titles as a measure of success, I would have to say that you are a moron.
With all due respect, of course.
For the coach after Miller
Come to Arizona where we are okay with you not meeting goals and expectations as long as you have a good conference record
Yes, another moronic statement from Machina. Saying final fours and national championships don't matter is ALMOST as moronic as saying that is all that matters. BTW, WHOSE goals and expectations are you talking about? Yours? Because I am pretty sure that Miller gets bonuses for winning the conference, winning the conference tournament, getting into the NCAA tournament, and winning games in the tournament. I won't look up the details of his contractual bonuses, because I am sure you will do that for me.
PHXCATS wrote:
And final four, that and national tiles are all that matter to me from here on out.
Well, if you only look at final fours and national titles as a measure of success, I would have to say that you are a moron.
With all due respect, of course.
For the coach after Miller
Come to Arizona where we are okay with you not meeting goals and expectations as long as you have a good conference record
"Hey coach who we want to hire at Arizona, do you want to coach at a place who fired the coach with the 26th best win percentage in College basketball history (ahead of Lute Olson, ahead of Rick Pitino, ahead of Jim Boeheim, ahead of Tim Izzo, etc.), because he's fallen short of the Final Four after reaching 3 Elite 8s and a couple of Sweet 16s here?"
Are we counting this season? Because at the moment Arizona has a definitive edge. So I'm lost why Altman has such a considerable edge. In the last five years, Arizona is 71-19 in the Pac. Over the same period Oregon is 65-25. So Arizona is averaging one more win per season.
You left out what one important thing:
Final Fours
Altman 1
Miller 0
As much I love CSM and believe he is the right guy for Arizona Basketball he will be judged by FF's and NC's. Every coach in every sport is judged the same way. I'm not saying that's fair or just; it's just the way it is. You could have been to the elite 8 twenty times in a row but most people will only remember you never made it to the Final Four.
Since the Final Four argument has been so overstated at this point, it merits saying that argument is pretty dumb on the math, and it conforms to casual populism instead of the kind of awareness you'd expect of fans who follow the game from the off-season to the pre-season and to April. The Final Four argument is nice for fans who start tuning when the brackets come out. And March Madness is fun, but it's fun built on chance and sudden death, not the hard stuff of consistency in winning during conference play. As if you're seriously going to give weight to Arizona's losses in a tournament where all but four teams in America make it on any given year, and not his winning percentage and conference championships while knowing those numbers point a higher chance of his future tourney success with respect to any other coach that Arizona could possibly land. You're basically giving into the power of advertising dollars to suggest that any coach with 1 or more Final Fours has some kind of significant achievement that Miller pales next to by comparison. There's a reason why it's called March Madness: It's all the insanity of better teams losing to underdogs in a one-and-out, "shining moment."
Sorry to be harsh, but this flimsy argument has gotten way too much play for a message board of people who supposedly follow college basketball.
From now on, I'll be concise and just say, "dumb argument" and leave it at that.
Longhorned wrote:Since the Final Four argument has been so overstated at this point, it merits saying that argument is pretty dumb on the math, and it conforms to casual populism instead of the kind of awareness you'd expect of fans who follow the game from the off-season to the pre-season and to April. The Final Four argument is nice for fans who start tuning when the brackets come out. And March Madness is fun, but it's fun built on chance and sudden death, not the hard stuff of consistency in winning during conference play. As if you're seriously going to give weight to Arizona's losses in a tournament where all but four teams in America make it on any given year, and not his winning percentage and conference championships while knowing those numbers point a higher chance of his future tourney success with respect to any other coach that Arizona could possibly land. You're basically giving into the power of advertising dollars to suggest that any coach with 1 or more Final Fours has some kind of significant achievement that Miller pales next to by comparison. There's a reason why it's called March Madness: It's all the insanity of better teams losing to underdogs in a one-and-out, "shining moment."
Sorry to be harsh, but this flimsy argument has gotten way too much play for a message board of people who supposedly follow college basketball.
From now on, I'll be concise and just say, "dumb argument" and leave it at that.
This from the guy who says we'll lose by 15 at home tonight? Lighten up dude.
PHXCATS wrote:
And final four, that and national tiles are all that matter to me from here on out.
Well, if you only look at final fours and national titles as a measure of success, I would have to say that you are a moron.
With all due respect, of course.
For the coach after Miller
Come to Arizona where we are okay with you not meeting goals and expectations as long as you have a good conference record
I wish there was an entrance exam required for registration on this board... so that posters would need to have verified an IQ in the triple digits. Then we would not be subject to moronic takes that lack any critical reasoning.
Fire Miller and tell the next coach that the record he has amassed "isn't good enough". They'll ride from the Airport to campus and say "How the fuck did Miller get all these studs to move HERE? No thanks... I'll go someplace with reasonable expectations like UCLA.
All this from the brainiac who thought 'showing improvement from a 3-9 FB season after 5 years in should be enough for RR to keep his job - and in FB conference records apparently do not matter. And who felched Bobby Hurley all during the OOC this year for the amazing job he had done.
Go sit at the kids table, Machina.
PS - I cannot help but wonder if Miller had a different last name, maybe you would like him?
Longhorned wrote:Since the Final Four argument has been so overstated at this point, it merits saying that argument is pretty dumb on the math, and it conforms to casual populism instead of the kind of awareness you'd expect of fans who follow the game from the off-season to the pre-season and to April. The Final Four argument is nice for fans who start tuning when the brackets come out. And March Madness is fun, but it's fun built on chance and sudden death, not the hard stuff of consistency in winning during conference play. As if you're seriously going to give weight to Arizona's losses in a tournament where all but four teams in America make it on any given year, and not his winning percentage and conference championships while knowing those numbers point a higher chance of his future tourney success with respect to any other coach that Arizona could possibly land. You're basically giving into the power of advertising dollars to suggest that any coach with 1 or more Final Fours has some kind of significant achievement that Miller pales next to by comparison. There's a reason why it's called March Madness: It's all the insanity of better teams losing to underdogs in a one-and-out, "shining moment."
Sorry to be harsh, but this flimsy argument has gotten way too much play for a message board of people who supposedly follow college basketball.
From now on, I'll be concise and just say, "dumb argument" and leave it at that.
zonagrad wrote:I see Miller trying to build and compete for a title every year. Altman's plan is to go with players who take longer to develop and stay longer. So they contend every 2-4 years. It's debatable which plan is better. Oregon's Final Four team certainly benefitted from getting two transfers who were granted a 6th year of eligibility. I mean, Dylan Ennis was 24 years old competing against 18-19 year olds.
Maybe. But I'm not sure Altman could've even been a player recruiting guys like Aaron Gordon, Stanley Johnson, or DeAndre Ayton. So it's not as though Altman was saying, "yeah, I could probably have Aaron Gordon, but instead, I'm gonna go with Jordan Bell." The Ducks have only very recently arrived as a national recruiting player. Remember Kyle Wiltjer? Think Altman didn't want him? I mean, I'm not even sure Oregon spent much time on him once UK started showing interest. But these last few years, Altman has scraped and clawed his way into the upper tier of recruiting. Their '18 class is better than ours. Yes, it's come as a result of the FBI scandal, but it also has to do with Oregon's steady rise as a program. Altman deserves the bulk of credit for that.
Would you rather have Miller's last five seasons or Altman's?
Completely agree. Altman is solid, but hardly elite. Plenty of coaches make final fours who are not at the top of the coaching pyramid. Would pick Miller over him 10/10 times. Altman got Dorsey because things fell apart with the AZ relationship, not because Oregon was a first choice destination, he got Bol because of the FBI issue. People seem to forget how great Miller has been year in and year out with great recruiting classes, winning seasons, deep tournament runs. Remember how bad things looked at the end of the Lute era when every relevant coach was turning the job down?
Just for the record, Miller completely out-coached Enfield tonight. Miller doesn't get enough credit when we win. And frankly, if we get a few fucking FT's our way in the first half the game isn't even close. USC made no adjustments. And we shredded their shitty zone.
Miller did an excellent job tonight. Deserves credit when credit it due. Offense looked much better tonight. We looked much more engaged on D and rebounded better.
The UCLA loss may become less and less significant as March nears. Two game lead with five to play. We’re in the driver’s seat, but we gotta either win @ASU or @Oregon. Can’t lose both. Call me crazy, but I actually think we’re gonna win the rest of our reg season games.
One of the things I heard Miller say in the presser was about the UCLA game and it was a soft admission on his part that some of that loss was due to what he had expected from Ayton...he said the difference in this game (beating USC tonite) was that rather than have Ayton guard multiple bigs he put him on Boatright and left him there...
This explains a LOT to me...in the last few games I think he has sort of over-estimated Aytons ability and it is a very natural thing to do when you have a player as incredible as Ayton is/will be...
Its easy to think with his high BB IQ and physical prowess that he can guard anyone at anytime, and its easy to forget he is only a freshman playing his first season of college basketball...I'm not sure I would have caught that subtle a COACHING mistake...
He realized it, corrected it and the difference was as he put it "Night and day" and "As Ayton goes, so goes Arizona"...
I appreciate that he made such a fine tuning adjustment and it unleashed a much better defensive product on the floor.
Felt like Saturday there's been a shift to "have fun and just play basketball"
I fly like a hawk, or better yet an eagle--a seagull. I sniff suckers out like a beagle...My ego is off and running and gone, Cause I'm about the best and if you diss than that's wrong
Olsondogg wrote:Felt like Saturday there's been a shift to "have fun and just play basketball"
This would be a welcome turn of events. If he loosens the reins just a bit, we might see this team hit its potential. Whatever happens the next few weeks in Pac play, I still think this team is built to win in the tourney. Two 7-footers, athletic wings, good FT shooting. Just need four solid games from PJC.
CalStateTempe wrote:Tepidly hopeful that we might be starting to see the team gel.
Man, phx...always bringing the wet blanket.
Not to hate on you buddy but like you with Trier?
You are damn right I am pissed when the effort isnt there. We all should be. You can tell so clearly when they try and when they dont. Big wins when they try for most the game. Losses or squeakers when they dont despite the fact that if you take the 10 most talented players on both teams for the majority of games in the PAC-12 8 or 9 are Wildcats every game.
2018 Bear Down Wildcats Conference Championship Challenge Champion
