Bear Down Wildcats

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

gumby wrote:

CalStateTempe wrote:Question...If Alford get to the FF before Miller, how did he do it? and What does that say about the CATS/Miller?

Certainly not trying to stir the pot, although it may come off like it, I'm just genuinely interested/concerned that Alford would be able to accomplish this feat despite being a mediocre coach and recruiter.

Well, he isn't mediocre at either one of those things. That aside, Harrick, Frieder/Fisher got there before Lute. Didn’t make me think they were better.

It happens.

Alford has been to the NCAA tourney 9 times in 22 years of coaching. He has a 9-9 record. Some of that is judged against expectations, but it's pretty mediocre. I think he's recruited above mediocre at UCLA.

That's better than the mean/median, which equals mediocre. I didn't take it to mean "mediocre among coaches who have been to tourney." Most coaches haven't been to 9. Some haven't been at all.

I don't think he's great. He is above average (easily that in recruiting). I don't know what "pretty mediocre" is? Almost mediocre? Better than? If the latter, we're not far apart.

gumby wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

gumby wrote:

CalStateTempe wrote:Question...If Alford get to the FF before Miller, how did he do it? and What does that say about the CATS/Miller?

Certainly not trying to stir the pot, although it may come off like it, I'm just genuinely interested/concerned that Alford would be able to accomplish this feat despite being a mediocre coach and recruiter.

Well, he isn't mediocre at either one of those things. That aside, Harrick, Frieder/Fisher got there before Lute. Didn’t make me think they were better.

It happens.

Alford has been to the NCAA tourney 9 times in 22 years of coaching. He has a 9-9 record. Some of that is judged against expectations, but it's pretty mediocre. I think he's recruited above mediocre at UCLA.

That's better than the mean/median, which equals mediocre. I didn't take it to mean "mediocre among coaches who have been to tourney." Most coaches haven't been to 9. Some haven't been at all.

I don't think he's great. He is above average (easily that in recruiting). I don't know what "pretty mediocre" is? Almost mediocre? Better than? If the latter, we're not far apart.

Here's my stab. Let's compare his tourney rate with Iowa and UNM over the last 25 years.

Iowa makes it 44% of the time over the last 25 years. They made it 3 of 8 years with Alford or 37%.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/iowa/" target="_blank

UNM made it 48% of the time over 25. Alford made it 3 of 6 years, or 50%.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/new-mexico/" target="_blank

At neither place did he make deep tourney runs, so I don't think that is a particularly relevant. Y definition of pretty mediocre would include "produces basically what an average coach would at that school." That's basically what he did at Iowa and UNM.

Edit: I don't compare to the mean for all colleges. Iowa and UNM are decent schools that have produced some success. UCLA, well, if he can't produce consistent tourneys there, he is just bad.

Any chance we can steer the UCLA talk back towards the thread's topic? K, thanks.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:2 games into this Pac season, we've swept a road series, which we only did once last year. We were only 4-5 in conference on the road.

We get Zo back...I feel pretty good about this. Despite the fact it's a down year and I should probably just accept that.

I figure we have to be all the way up to a 10 seed, maybe 9 with the Cal win. With those 2 losses to top 15 teams as our only 2 losses, i figure we can lose 3, maybe 4 conference games and still make the tournament with a good weekend in Vegas. Semi loss might have us in Dayton, but it's thhe tournament, right?

(This is a topic you approve of, right BC97?)

Beachcat97 wrote:Any chance we can steer the UCLA talk back towards the thread's topic? K, thanks.

Someone with a sense of humor has hijacked your account.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

gumby wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

gumby wrote:

CalStateTempe wrote:Question...If Alford get to the FF before Miller, how did he do it? and What does that say about the CATS/Miller?

Certainly not trying to stir the pot, although it may come off like it, I'm just genuinely interested/concerned that Alford would be able to accomplish this feat despite being a mediocre coach and recruiter.

Well, he isn't mediocre at either one of those things. That aside, Harrick, Frieder/Fisher got there before Lute. Didn’t make me think they were better.

It happens.

Alford has been to the NCAA tourney 9 times in 22 years of coaching. He has a 9-9 record. Some of that is judged against expectations, but it's pretty mediocre. I think he's recruited above mediocre at UCLA.

That's better than the mean/median, which equals mediocre. I didn't take it to mean "mediocre among coaches who have been to tourney." Most coaches haven't been to 9. Some haven't been at all.

I don't think he's great. He is above average (easily that in recruiting). I don't know what "pretty mediocre" is? Almost mediocre? Better than? If the latter, we're not far apart.

Here's my stab. Let's compare his tourney rate with Iowa and UNM over the last 25 years.

Iowa makes it 44% of the time over the last 25 years. They made it 3 of 8 years with Alford or 37%.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/iowa/" target="_blank

UNM made it 48% of the time over 25. Alford made it 3 of 6 years, or 50%.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/new-mexico/" target="_blank

At neither place did he make deep tourney runs, so I don't think that is a particularly relevant. Y definition of pretty mediocre would include "produces basically what an average coach would at that school." That's basically what he did at Iowa and UNM.

Edit: I don't compare to the mean for all colleges. Iowa and UNM are decent schools that have produced some success. UCLA, well, if he can't produce consistent tourneys there, he is just bad.

You're diving deeper than my tank will allow. How about we just agree that it won't say much about Miller if Alford gets there first.

Miller is a top five coach in terms of guys you would select if starting a program today.

I also do agree that Alford's outcome this year says nothing about Miller. Frankly, unless UCLA ends the year in disaster or a NC, I'm not sure it says a lot about Alford either.

Miller's record speaks for itself. He's currently at the top of the list of "best coaches who haven't yet reached a FF." He'll probably get there when we don't expect it.

Alford had the enormous fortune of keeping multiple impact players for longer than a mere season or two (Alford, Welsh, Hamilton), and he added three elite freshmen (Ball, Leaf, Anigbogu). It's the lottery ticket every coach in America is trying for every year: that ideal blend of returning players and freshmen talent. Gonzaga also seems to have won this "lottery" this year.

Whoa, that was good, spine tingling good. That needs to be played before every game, right before they come out

Awesome ...

Got me so hyped. Watched it ten times.

Jesus. That was amazing. Totally agree that that needs to run before every home game.

As an aside, Greg Hansen in his video notebook today picked Utah to upset the cats tomorrow. Does that shock anyone that he picked his beloved Utah. His interview prior to the BYU football game running down AZ was just another example of all things in Utah are the best

That's so good. I watched it 3 straight times.

azcat49 wrote:As an aside, Greg Hansen in his video notebook today picked Utah to upset the cats tomorrow. Does that shock anyone that he picked his beloved Utah. His interview prior to the BYU football game running down AZ was just another example of all things in Utah are the best

Really? Is Utah playing so well that they're a reasonable pick at McKale? Is Arizona looking vulnerable?

I feel confident that we're going to beat Utah this week.

Arizona favored by double digit points last time I looked.

You got me on that pick. I know they have two guys who have only played 5 games since they became eligible after transfers but I am sure the cats will not underestimate them

Have lost two games, to the #5 and #18 team in the nation (#18 going up after beating #1 Nova), and haven't given up 70 points in a single game...

...but yeah, it is reasonable that Utah will beat us. Not saying it is not possible but it isn't even in the circle of reason to pick

azgreg wrote:

We'll be the most impressive NIT team ever.

azcat49 wrote:As an aside, Greg Hansen in his video notebook today picked Utah to upset the cats tomorrow. Does that shock anyone that he picked his beloved Utah. His interview prior to the BYU football game running down AZ was just another example of all things in Utah are the best

Personally I think it's senility setting in with Pops.

azgreg wrote:

It's a down year. They happen.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

azgreg wrote:

It's a down year. They happen.

Let's see what our record and metrics look like on 2/5, after one half of Pac play will be completed. We could help ourselves by beating a ranked team. If we go the rest of the way with zero reg season wins over ranked Pac teams, but win the rest of them, we should get in as a low seed.

Smh

UAEebs86 wrote:

azcat49 wrote:As an aside, Greg Hansen in his video notebook today picked Utah to upset the cats tomorrow. Does that shock anyone that he picked his beloved Utah. His interview prior to the BYU football game running down AZ was just another example of all things in Utah are the best

Personally I think it's senility setting in with Pops.

He's always been senile. He'll pick Duke to win it all and have the Cats losing in the first round.

catgrad97 wrote:

UAEebs86 wrote:

azcat49 wrote:As an aside, Greg Hansen in his video notebook today picked Utah to upset the cats tomorrow. Does that shock anyone that he picked his beloved Utah. His interview prior to the BYU football game running down AZ was just another example of all things in Utah are the best

Personally I think it's senility setting in with Pops.

He's always been senile. He'll pick Duke to win it all and have the Cats losing in the first round.

I'll be soooo glad when he's gone....still remember his longstanding beef with Lute. He's a dinosaur and an obnoxious one at that.....still like his son Ben though!

ADS would be much better-served getting a youngster to take over IMHO.

Be careful what you wish for with the young guys. Agree though, Hansen's job shouldn't have outlived the 90s and here we are, almost two decades later dealing with the same crap.

azcat49 wrote:As an aside, Greg Hansen in his video notebook today picked Utah to upset the cats tomorrow. Does that shock anyone that he picked his beloved Utah. His interview prior to the BYU football game running down AZ was just another example of all things in Utah are the best

Line was Arizona -10.0. This game went down like literally everyone in the world thought it would, except Greg Hansen.

rgdeuce wrote:Be careful what you wish for with the young guys. Agree though, Hansen's job shouldn't have outlived the 90s and here we are, almost two decades later dealing with the same crap.

I get the risk factor.....just have never liked this guy......can't imagine they/we could do worse. I still resent how he let his personal feud with Lute color his commentary.

Imagine if we played more zone

We are officially 1 piece away...

UAEebs86 wrote:Imagine if we played more zone

Stubborn as Greg Hansen, I swear. Hate how his feud with the zone colors his coaching.

What I like about the team showed up last night. Lauri leads us the first 10 minutes. Parker the next 10 (quite a feat for the WPOTF). Then Kadeem during a rough patch. Then Dusan down the stretch. Some nights the freshmen take the lead. Some nights, like last night, it's experience.

Loving this defense. Kuzma starts with emphatic jam, then we disappear him. Bonam was a ghost. Thought Tall Coach K was too quick on the trigger in pulling Collette each time. Our surges corresponded with his absences. He is good.

I don't mind the little bit of backstory with Hansen and the program, makes it more interesting and real. If all Hansen did for the past 20 years is just say U of A is great and write puff stories, it would be no different coverage than a beat writer reporting on the team. He's paid to give an opinion, and I've always enjoyed his work. It's nice actually to have someone of his caliber for a small town like Tucson, we're lucky. If he retired tomorrow, we'd all lose.

I've never had a problem with Hansen besides his proclivity to tell stories about players and times from before even I was born. He's a little Grandpa Simpson-ish in that way.

Puerco wrote:I've never had a problem with Hansen besides his proclivity to tell stories about players and times from before even I was born. He's a little Grandpa Simpson-ish in that way.

Hey, sonny, I remember ever one of those characters in his stories!

Puerco wrote:I've never had a problem with Hansen besides his proclivity to tell stories about players and times from before even I was born. He's a little Grandpa Simpson-ish in that way.

In those days, players wore onions tied to their belts.

https://youtu.be/-o-7MmhqNfA" target="_blank

Longhorned wrote:
Line was Arizona -10.0. This game went down like literally everyone in the world thought it would, except Greg Hansen.

Greg Hansen is the douche who simultaneously trolls and tries too hard to go against the grain with a prediction, and in the rare case he gets it right he will let you know. If he is wrong, he fades into the background, until the opportunity arises to do it again. One of the first things that popped into my head once we put the game away was "F you Greg Hansen."

Longhorned wrote:

azcat49 wrote:As an aside, Greg Hansen in his video notebook today picked Utah to upset the cats tomorrow. Does that shock anyone that he picked his beloved Utah. His interview prior to the BYU football game running down AZ was just another example of all things in Utah are the best

Line was Arizona -10.0. This game went down like literally everyone in the world thought it would, except Greg Hansen.

Reverse jinx?

gumby wrote:

UAEebs86 wrote:Imagine if we played more zone

Stubborn as Greg Hansen, I swear. Hate how his feud with the zone colors his coaching.

What I like about the team showed up last night. Lauri leads us the first 10 minutes. Parker the next 10 (quite a feat for the WPOTF). Then Kadeem during a rough patch. Then Dusan down the stretch. Some nights the freshmen take the lead. Some nights, like last night, it's experience.

Loving this defense. Kuzma starts with emphatic jam, then we disappear him. Bonam was a ghost. Thought Tall Coach K was too quick on the trigger in pulling Collette each time. Our surges corresponded with his absences. He is good.

Yeah, Kuzma blew by Lauri on his first bucket. Woke him up. Went 2-9 for 6 points the rest of the game and only had two rebounds. He's a decent prospect, averages 14 and 9 a game. Lauri's defense was outstanding. Utah shot 43% from the floor. That number was bolstered by (well coached) Utes who knew when to attack when most guys wait for the offense to get set. There were at least 4 instances where our perimeter defenders did not respect the drive and were flat-footed thinking a Utah ball handler was going to set up the offense, and the Utah player saw there was no one under the basket because the bigs from both teams were still running up the floor, and they blew right by their man. Smart smart basketball. They had a ton of open shots because of sloppy switching, and hedging and recovering. If you watched how they were attacking on offense, it is apparent Larry K and his staff and their team do their homework and know exactly how to exploit weaknesses. They didnt go to their man 2 man all night on defense either, he knew that was the only way they had a chance to keep things close and it worked for most of the game, absent a few nice runs by us.

Every time we play Utah, I thank God Larry K is coaching in Utah and not at one of the California schools. There is a reason Sean Miller slobbers all over the dude any chance he gets.

TheGreatCatsby wrote:I don't mind the little bit of backstory with Hansen and the program, makes it more interesting and real. If all Hansen did for the past 20 years is just say U of A is great and write puff stories, it would be no different coverage than a beat writer reporting on the team. He's paid to give an opinion, and I've always enjoyed his work. It's nice actually to have someone of his caliber for a small town like Tucson, we're lucky. If he retired tomorrow, we'd all lose.

The problem is, his opinion is based on someone elses'. I remember someone compared Aaron Gordon to Scottie Pippen. Not too long later, Hansen wrote an article comparing Gordon to Scottie Pippen. I'll give him credit, the dude has a good memory and puts in a lot of work in terms of research. More than most. But he's that student that gets A's because he remembered the text book inside and out, rather than the student who gets A's because they are smart and can reason and think critically. Dude has absolutely no grasp on the internal workings of major sports, he just regurgitates what he read somewhere else.

We have had sports guys come from Tucson and go to ESPN, radio personalities who have syndicated morning shows that are heard in 15 major cities.. There is a reason Hansen is still here and most don't like him (completely aside from his history with Lute). We aren't a small town, he writes for a municipality of more than 1 million people, with a premier college basketball program in the middle, a power conference school that on a whole hangs with the best of said conference in all other sports, that is two hours away from professional basketball, baseball, football and hockey, and that once had three MLB teams holding their spring training here at once. Dont consider us lucky at all.

rgdeuce wrote:

TheGreatCatsby wrote:I don't mind the little bit of backstory with Hansen and the program, makes it more interesting and real. If all Hansen did for the past 20 years is just say U of A is great and write puff stories, it would be no different coverage than a beat writer reporting on the team. He's paid to give an opinion, and I've always enjoyed his work. It's nice actually to have someone of his caliber for a small town like Tucson, we're lucky. If he retired tomorrow, we'd all lose.

The problem is, his opinion is based on someone elses'. I remember someone compared Aaron Gordon to Scottie Pippen. Not too long later, Hansen wrote an article comparing Gordon to Scottie Pippen. I'll give him credit, the dude has a good memory and puts in a lot of work in terms of research. More than most. But he's that student that gets A's because he remembered the text book inside and out, rather than the student who gets A's because they are smart and can reason and think critically. Dude has absolutely no grasp on the internal workings of major sports, he just regurgitates what he read somewhere else.

We have had sports guys come from Tucson and go to ESPN, radio personalities who have syndicated morning shows that are heard in 15 major cities.. There is a reason Hansen is still here and most don't like him (completely aside from his history with Lute). We aren't a small town, he writes for a municipality of more than 1 million people, with a premier college basketball program in the middle, a power conference school that on a whole hangs with the best of said conference in all other sports, that is two hours away from professional basketball, baseball, football and hockey, and that once had three MLB teams holding their spring training here at once.

You're that guy who's in love with "he's that guy" comparisons.

Look, I get not liking him, but this isn't rocket science, it's sports. He knows more than you describe here, and but he's a columnist for a daily newspapers, not some guy hired to "break it down." He has broad readership that includes people who don't obsess over every game or every possession like we do. He's not going to rock the PERs or the RPI or the whatever the geeks are using these days. He'd be crazy to given his role. He's a generalist. The minute he goes full geek, he loses half (or more) of the audience.

Also, he isn't vying for radio and TV jobs, so I don't even understand that comparison. You're like that guy who couldn't get the date, so he ... just kidding.

I know him. I know the business. He isn't trying to be what you seem to want. And please note that what you want would bore the hell out of many readers.

Plus, and this is big. he's like the guy who can write!

He's got to play his lane then. If he doesn't want to get criticized for not being sports geek, then don't play sports geek and put an analysis of what happens between the lines. If he wants to be the good writer who just delivers the news in an interesting manner, then don't interject opinions and let bias creep in, dont play devil's advocate or show off your boner for players or coaches whenever you can. You don't have to play one or the other, but if you play both you better know what you are talking about or use quotes from people who do to support what you are saying. I don't expect a deep analysis and PER numbers or Bird scores and I don't fault him for not doing all that. But he does throw elementary-level analyses in a lot of his articles which are often completely way off. Things he comes up with on his own because any player, coach, or expert would never tell him that. You are going to be wrong sometimes, that's a given, but it's one thing to say apple when it's an orange, and it's another to say apple when it's sushi. There are plenty of guys who have written for Tucson newspapers who may not be quite the writers that Hansen is, but they play their lane.

A lot of assumptions on your part of what I want. If I want a deep analysis, I watch the games and form my own conclusions; I know how to get to KenPom; I know who the best analysts are; I keep my eye out for or ask for the opinions of certain posters on message boards, etc. Most stat geeks annoy the hell out of me anyhow. Hansen is certainly capable of writing some very good articles and I have never hesitated to honestly give him his due props when he does.

Moving on from Hansen to Colorado....looks like that dbag Xavier Johnson IS eligible to play since his flagrant 2 foul at ASSU was NOT for fighting.....GOOD, as I hope we force him into a crappy game and don't want any excuses for them losing.

Don't know much about them other than their Senior Guard White who dropped 35 on ASU and shooting 42% from 3 looks more like a shooter than facilitator (4.1/2.8 ; Assists/ TO rate)...he's 6'5 so I think PJC has his work cut out defensively.

Of the 9 players who played significant minutes, 7 were guards and 2 forwards both at 6'9. Looks like we should have our way with them in the front court. They did beat Xavier early on (impressive) but at 10-5 with losses to CSU and ASSU and a blowout loss at Utah, we should beat them fairly comfortably at McKale.

Thoughts?

Rado's only chance is to shoot lights out from 3 so I expect our defense to guard the perimeter a little more tightly compared to the Utah game.

Nothing would be sweeter than a Crying Tad beatdown.

I feel confident we're going to beat Colorado.

I know, I know, anything can happen, but I have a hard time taking a team too seriously at McKale when their leading scorer is a D-II transfer, their front court consists of two 6'9" forwards, and the team has a history of not completely showing up for some road trips.
I predict we beat the spread even though Covers.com's preview writer does not agree with me.

I never bet on AZ. Always feels wrong.

Really disappointing to see us let CU back in the game in the second half....they had no business having a chance that late in the game.....especially at McKale. I bet CSM gets on them in practice for this.