Bear Down Wildcats

Is there some reason a really good performance cannot be praised without tearing down some other player? Ristic and York were fantastic. Period.

That's a good thing.

Psychology is also interesting. Zags trailed by 17 last night and won by 10. Fans are pumped. We led by 14. Lost it and won by 10. Fans are glum. That 28 minutes when the Bruins could only muster 23 points? Doesn't count. Crushing them on the boards? Doesn't count. Holding them far below their average? Doesn't count.

If it were 80-70 and we trailed most of the way and shot 50 percent and battled them to a tie on the boards ... that's better?

Kentucky shot 36 percent against Columbia. It happens. Not often you still win by 10.

I am waiting for Rocky to tell me how I should feel Gumby. After all, he is omnicient

azcat49 wrote:I am waiting for Rocky to tell me how I should feel Gumby. After all, he is omnicient

IGNORE is your friend. If people don't vaccinate, what can I say?

gumby wrote:

azcat49 wrote:I am waiting for Rocky to tell me how I should feel Gumby. After all, he is omnicient

IGNORE is your friend. If people don't vaccinate, what can I say?

Doesn't work when posters quote the fool.

UAEebs86 wrote:

gumby wrote:

azcat49 wrote:I am waiting for Rocky to tell me how I should feel Gumby. After all, he is omnicient

IGNORE is your friend. If people don't vaccinate, what can I say?

Doesn't work when posters quote the fool.

Yep. Read up on herd immunity, people. If you quote, you can't eradicate.

I'm impressed that we won last night given how godawful are starters played, Ashley and RHJ in particular. Did anyone watching last night come away with the impression that Ashley and RHJ would be smart to declare for the draft?

But it happens. Good teams play like sh*t. And better it happen now than three weeks from now. I just hope our offense last night was largely an aberration, and I think it was, given where we are statistically. It's troubling that the bright lights of ESPN and a national audience might've affected our starters because that's exactly what March Madness is all about.

But I think we'll return to form this week with a win over CU, and the Utah game should be a good one.

Happy we beat UCLA, happy Bruin fans are crying in their coffee this morning, and happy about where this team is with two weeks left in the regular season.

What you described is just classic Miller. That is fine but until he can beat several elite teams in a row in March like that I'm not convinced he is a Hall of Famer like all of you are.

RockyRaccoon wrote:What you described is just classic Miller. That is fine but until he can beat several elite teams in a row in March like that I'm not convinced he is a Hall of Famer like all of you are.

I sorta doubt anyone can actually make the argument that Miller is a HOFer, now. I think, rather, that many here are convinced that he's on track to get there. His record in his first five seasons, his recruiting success, and his narrow defeats in the E8 are all the evidence you need. Miller is doing better than 99% of the other coaches out there.

He's pretty young, too, RR. Younger than Lute was when he got to Tucson.

Beachcat97 wrote:

RockyRaccoon wrote:What you described is just classic Miller. That is fine but until he can beat several elite teams in a row in March like that I'm not convinced he is a Hall of Famer like all of you are.

I sorta doubt anyone can actually make the argument that Miller is a HOFer, now. I think, rather, that many here are convinced that he's on track to get there. His record in his first five seasons, his recruiting success, and his narrow defeats in the E8 are all the evidence you need. Miller is doing better than 99% of the other coaches out there.

He's pretty young, too, RR. Younger than Lute was when he got to Tucson.

I suppose you are using hyperbole when you say 99% of coaches. I do believe he is a top-15, top-10 coach in college basketball right now.

Also I am not a big fan of claiming recruiting success as being a good coach. Mark Richt at Georgia gets a top five class every year and averages a 9-3 record.

Except Miller has had lots of success as a head coach on the court (273-98 record).

Please list the 14 head coaches out there right now you would rather have for the next 15 years. This should be entertaining.

gumby wrote:

UAEebs86 wrote:

gumby wrote:

azcat49 wrote:I am waiting for Rocky to tell me how I should feel Gumby. After all, he is omnicient

IGNORE is your friend. If people don't vaccinate, what can I say?

Doesn't work when posters quote the fool.

Yep. Read up on herd immunity, people. If you quote, you can't eradicate.

That's why these forums are bad for you. Unnecessary hormones and anti-biotics.

azcat34 wrote:Except Miller has had lots of success as a head coach on the court (273-98 record).

Please list the 14 head coaches out there right now you would rather have for the next 15 years. This should be entertaining.

Nobody said anything about the next 15 years. I'm talking right now, this season.

My top 15 would be:
K
Bennett
Pitino
Donovan
Izzo
Larry Brown
Steve Fisher
Beilein
Shaka
Miller
Gregg Marshall
Ben Jacobson (criminally underrated)
Krystkowiak
Cal (I guess)
Boeheim (I guess)

RockyRaccoon wrote:

azcat34 wrote:Except Miller has had lots of success as a head coach on the court (273-98 record).

Please list the 14 head coaches out there right now you would rather have for the next 15 years. This should be entertaining.

Nobody said anything about the next 15 years. I'm talking right now, this season.

My top 15 would be:
K
Bennett
Pitino
Donovan
Izzo
Larry Brown
Steve Fisher
Beilein
Shaka
Miller
Gregg Marshall
Ben Jacobson (criminally underrated)
Krystkowiak
Cal (I guess)
Boeheim (I guess)

What are you measuring, wins and losses? Recent performance ("what have you done for me lately")? When ranking college coaches, consider the whole package -> The Program

- Culture
- Consistency
- Recruiting
- Recruiting players who are not knuckleheads or have red flags
- Winning big games
- Handling losses well
- Team Identity (i.e., defense? offense?)
- Taking care of the school stuff, academics, etc.
- Conference titles, POY's, all conference
- Fan support, Fan participation, Fan Optimism
- Coach represents university well, as the face, getting donors to want to contribute
- HUNGER to win, win it all (age of the coach may be a factor)

So, who you have?

My top 5
1. Miller
2. Donovan
3. Smart
4. hmmm
5. hmmm

Bosy Billups wrote:

RockyRaccoon wrote:

azcat34 wrote:Except Miller has had lots of success as a head coach on the court (273-98 record).

Please list the 14 head coaches out there right now you would rather have for the next 15 years. This should be entertaining.

Nobody said anything about the next 15 years. I'm talking right now, this season.

My top 15 would be:
K
Bennett
Pitino
Donovan
Izzo
Larry Brown
Steve Fisher
Beilein
Shaka
Miller
Gregg Marshall
Ben Jacobson (criminally underrated)
Krystkowiak
Cal (I guess)
Boeheim (I guess)

What are you measuring, wins and losses? Recent performance ("what have you done for me lately")? When ranking college coaches, consider the whole package -> The Program

- Culture
- Consistency
- Recruiting
- Recruiting players who are not knuckleheads or have red flags
- Winning big games
- Handling losses well
- Team Identity (i.e., defense? offense?)
- Taking care of the school stuff, academics, etc.
- Conference titles, POY's, all conference
- Fan support, Fan participation, Fan Optimism
- Coach represents university well, as the face, getting donors to want to contribute
- HUNGER to win, win it all (age of the coach may be a factor)

So, who you have?

My top 5
1. Miller
2. Donovan
3. Smart
4. hmmm
5. hmmm

My rankings were purely coaching based (in-game, preparation, development, etc.)

RockyRaccoon wrote:

Bosy Billups wrote:

RockyRaccoon wrote:

azcat34 wrote:Except Miller has had lots of success as a head coach on the court (273-98 record).

Please list the 14 head coaches out there right now you would rather have for the next 15 years. This should be entertaining.

Nobody said anything about the next 15 years. I'm talking right now, this season.

My top 15 would be:
K
Bennett
Pitino
Donovan
Izzo
Larry Brown
Steve Fisher
Beilein
Shaka
Miller
Gregg Marshall
Ben Jacobson (criminally underrated)
Krystkowiak
Cal (I guess)
Boeheim (I guess)

What are you measuring, wins and losses? Recent performance ("what have you done for me lately")? When ranking college coaches, consider the whole package -> The Program

- Culture
- Consistency
- Recruiting
- Recruiting players who are not knuckleheads or have red flags
- Winning big games
- Handling losses well
- Team Identity (i.e., defense? offense?)
- Taking care of the school stuff, academics, etc.
- Conference titles, POY's, all conference
- Fan support, Fan participation, Fan Optimism
- Coach represents university well, as the face, getting donors to want to contribute
- HUNGER to win, win it all (age of the coach may be a factor)

So, who you have?

My top 5
1. Miller
2. Donovan
3. Smart
4. hmmm
5. hmmm

My rankings were purely coaching based (in-game, preparation, development, etc.)

Gotcha. So who is your top 5 to captain "The Program", say next 5-10 years?

First you have to explain your rules for age restrictions. From the way you described "program" coaches, Izzo, K, and Pitino would all be near the top of your list I would think. K can probably coach well and maintain his program for another 10 years and Pitino and Izzo another 15.

Jesus you are crazy man. Ben Jacobson?

RockyRaccoon wrote:First you have to explain your rules for age restrictions. From the way you described "program" coaches, Izzo, K, and Pitino would all be near the top of your list I would think. K can probably coach well and maintain his program for another 10 years and Pitino and Izzo another 15.

No rules for age. Let's say the only rule is you are starting from ground zero. But you might want to consider age because the older one gets, the harder it is. That's just reality. Fisher is a great coach, as is Pitino, but do they have the fire/energy to build a program, culture, etc.?

You're building a program from ground zero, and looking out the next 10 years, and even beyond for a succession.

He is a really good basketball coach.

Bosy Billups wrote:

RockyRaccoon wrote:First you have to explain your rules for age restrictions. From the way you described "program" coaches, Izzo, K, and Pitino would all be near the top of your list I would think. K can probably coach well and maintain his program for another 10 years and Pitino and Izzo another 15.

No rules for age. Let's say the only rule is you are starting from ground zero. But you might want to consider age because the older one gets, the harder it is. That's just reality. Fisher is a great coach, as is Pitino, but do they have the fire/energy to build a program, culture, etc.?

You're building a program from ground zero, and looking out the next 10 years, and even beyond for a succession.

Well from ground zero

1. Bennett
2. Smart
3. Donovan
4. Miller
5. Gregg Marshall

If he ever comes back to college I would put Brad Stevens at the top.

RockyRaccoon wrote:

Bosy Billups wrote:

RockyRaccoon wrote:First you have to explain your rules for age restrictions. From the way you described "program" coaches, Izzo, K, and Pitino would all be near the top of your list I would think. K can probably coach well and maintain his program for another 10 years and Pitino and Izzo another 15.

No rules for age. Let's say the only rule is you are starting from ground zero. But you might want to consider age because the older one gets, the harder it is. That's just reality. Fisher is a great coach, as is Pitino, but do they have the fire/energy to build a program, culture, etc.?

You're building a program from ground zero, and looking out the next 10 years, and even beyond for a succession.

Well from ground zero

1. Bennett
2. Smart
3. Donovan
4. Miller
5. Gregg Marshall

If he ever comes back to college I would put Brad Stevens at the top.

Now we're talking.

Curious, why do you like Bennett and Smart over Miller building a program?

By the way, to me, I think branding is important. Do either of them have their own "A Players Program" or any of that presence? That doesn't win games, but it helps in recruiting, donations, television appearances, etc.

Bosy Billups wrote:

RockyRaccoon wrote:

Bosy Billups wrote:

RockyRaccoon wrote:First you have to explain your rules for age restrictions. From the way you described "program" coaches, Izzo, K, and Pitino would all be near the top of your list I would think. K can probably coach well and maintain his program for another 10 years and Pitino and Izzo another 15.

No rules for age. Let's say the only rule is you are starting from ground zero. But you might want to consider age because the older one gets, the harder it is. That's just reality. Fisher is a great coach, as is Pitino, but do they have the fire/energy to build a program, culture, etc.?

You're building a program from ground zero, and looking out the next 10 years, and even beyond for a succession.

Well from ground zero

1. Bennett
2. Smart
3. Donovan
4. Miller
5. Gregg Marshall

If he ever comes back to college I would put Brad Stevens at the top.

Now we're talking.

Curious, why do you like Bennett and Smart over Miller building a program?

By the way, to me, I think branding is important. Do either of them have their own "A Players Program" or any of that presence? That doesn't win games, but it helps in recruiting, donations, television appearances, etc.

Honestly I like Bennett's resume more than Miller's at this point. Miller has more wins and has been further in the tournament a few times but Bennett has been VERY successful in maybe the country's toughest conference these past few years. He also took a Wazzu team that was the Pac-10's doormat to the tournament on multiple occasions at a time when the Pac-10 was really good.

Smart's success at VCU stands on its own. I personally enjoy Smart's style more than anyone in the country as well. I would be very interested in seeing Smart's style being executed with a top recruiting class. That being said, it's very close between Smart and Miller for me. Donovan probably should be 1 or 2 actually.

As for their marketability, I can't answer that. Are you sure Miller came up with "A Player's Program" or was it GB?

RockyRaccoon wrote:

Bosy Billups wrote:

RockyRaccoon wrote:

Bosy Billups wrote:

RockyRaccoon wrote:First you have to explain your rules for age restrictions. From the way you described "program" coaches, Izzo, K, and Pitino would all be near the top of your list I would think. K can probably coach well and maintain his program for another 10 years and Pitino and Izzo another 15.

No rules for age. Let's say the only rule is you are starting from ground zero. But you might want to consider age because the older one gets, the harder it is. That's just reality. Fisher is a great coach, as is Pitino, but do they have the fire/energy to build a program, culture, etc.?

You're building a program from ground zero, and looking out the next 10 years, and even beyond for a succession.

Well from ground zero

1. Bennett
2. Smart
3. Donovan
4. Miller
5. Gregg Marshall

If he ever comes back to college I would put Brad Stevens at the top.

Now we're talking.

Curious, why do you like Bennett and Smart over Miller building a program?

By the way, to me, I think branding is important. Do either of them have their own "A Players Program" or any of that presence? That doesn't win games, but it helps in recruiting, donations, television appearances, etc.

Honestly I like Bennett's resume more than Miller's at this point. Miller has more wins and has been further in the tournament a few times but Bennett has been VERY successful in maybe the country's toughest conference these past few years. He also took a Wazzu team that was the Pac-10's doormat to the tournament on multiple occasions at a time when the Pac-10 was really good.

Smart's success at VCU stands on its own. I personally enjoy Smart's style more than anyone in the country as well. I would be very interested in seeing Smart's style being executed with a top recruiting class. That being said, it's very close between Smart and Miller for me. Donovan probably should be 1 or 2 actually.

As for their marketability, I can't answer that. Are you sure Miller came up with "A Player's Program" or was it GB?

Alright, cool. Bennett, I can see that. The way he represents the program, the character of players he brings in, how hard he works on the recruiting trail, how hungry he is to make a final four and win a national championship, and for many more reasons, Miller all day.

gumby wrote:Is there some reason a really good performance cannot be praised without tearing down some other player? Ristic and York were fantastic. Period.

That's a good thing.

Psychology is also interesting. Zags trailed by 17 last night and won by 10. Fans are pumped. We led by 14. Lost it and won by 10. Fans are glum. That 28 minutes when the Bruins could only muster 23 points? Doesn't count. Crushing them on the boards? Doesn't count. Holding them far below their average? Doesn't count.

If it were 80-70 and we trailed most of the way and shot 50 percent and battled them to a tie on the boards ... that's better?

Kentucky shot 36 percent against Columbia. It happens. Not often you still win by 10.

Unlike somebody else around here, I'm unable to see where all of the posters here have stated their conviction that Miller is a future HOF'er, and I'm not smart enough to understand why MIller is less capable than other young coaches in achieving the kind of future deep-tourney runs that would one day lead to a place in the HOF. But I am smart enough to see the merits of the quoted post. And to appreciate the coaching that goes into molding a team that's able to win by 10 points on its poorest offensive outing of the year by out-rebounding its opponent by 18 and holding them to 47 points.

I like that Rocky likes Bennett's resume better than Miller's despite having less wins and tourney success.

A+ troll game there.

gumby wrote:Is there some reason a really good performance cannot be praised without tearing down some other player? Ristic and York were fantastic. Period.

That's a good thing.

Psychology is also interesting. Zags trailed by 17 last night and won by 10. Fans are pumped. We led by 14. Lost it and won by 10. Fans are glum. That 28 minutes when the Bruins could only muster 23 points? Doesn't count. Crushing them on the boards? Doesn't count. Holding them far below their average? Doesn't count.

If it were 80-70 and we trailed most of the way and shot 50 percent and battled them to a tie on the boards ... that's better?

Kentucky shot 36 percent against Columbia. It happens. Not often you still win by 10.

Was thinking this exactly, Gumby. I don't get fans, so myopic. The forest or the trees...

I guess, after thinking a little more, this is a sign that we are good, like really good. People need to find something to bitch about and now that includes double digit victories.

Chicat wrote:I like that Rocky likes Bennett's resume better than Miller's despite having less wins and tourney success.

A+ troll game there.

It has to be because RR (from what I can recall when I was able to read his posts) did not feel like Miller's approach prioritizes offense enough to make us a perennial national contender.

Bennett, on the other hand, puts some of the most exciting and potent offenses on the floor in all of college basketball. I know Virginia is good, although I have not watched them play, but from what I recall his offenses at Wazzu were absolutely explosive and could simply run other teams off of the court.

Chicat wrote:I like that Rocky likes Bennett's resume better than Miller's despite having less wins and tourney success.

A+ troll game there.

He has coached two less seasons and has coached in the ACC and a Pac-10 that had higher quality.

What does coaching fewer seasons and in which conference have to do with success in the tourney? Your boy Bennett has exactly two Sweet Sixteen appearances on his resume. Is that because of the strength of the ACC? Wouldn't playing good teams throughout the year actually give a team a leg up in the tourney?

As for your relative conference strength argument, last year Miller went 15-3 in the third best conference in America according to RPI while Bennett went 16-2 in the fifth best. If anything that's a wash.

In 2013 the ACC was 4th and Bennett went 11-7. The PAC was 6th and Miller went 12-6. Seems to be relatively close again.

In 2012 Miller went 12-6 again but in a terrible Pac-12 (10th). Bennett went 9-7 in the 6th rated ACC. I'll give that one to your boy, but it's not as if the ACC was setting the world on fire.

In 2011 the Pac-10 was 7th and the ACC 5th. Miller went 14-4, Bennett went 7-9. Advantage Miller.

In 2010 (both coaches first seasons at their current schools), Miller was 10-8 in the 8th ranked Pac while Bennett was 5-11 in the 3rd ranked ACC.

I think I've demonstrated that your conference argument just doesn't hold water and that the comparison is a wash at best.

Try harder Rocky.

You guys need to stop confusing Rocky with facts.

It's all about the eye test. His eyes only.

UAEebs86 wrote:You guys need to stop confusing Rocky with facts.

It's all about the eye test. His eyes only.

He can't believe in the eye test much if he believes Pitino can coach another 15 years. Statistically, Rick is 62, but use the eye test and he's been dead for a few days.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

UAEebs86 wrote:You guys need to stop confusing Rocky with facts.

It's all about the eye test. His eyes only.

He can't believe in the eye test much if he believes Pitino can coach another 15 years. Statistically, Rick is 62, but use the eye test and he's been dead for a few days.

Ah. The old burnt-out-bodyshell test.

Chicat wrote:What does coaching fewer seasons and in which conference have to do with success in the tourney? Your boy Bennett has exactly two Sweet Sixteen appearances on his resume. Is that because of the strength of the ACC? Wouldn't playing good teams throughout the year actually give a team a leg up in the tourney?

As for your relative conference strength argument, last year Miller went 15-3 in the third best conference in America according to RPI while Bennett went 16-2 in the fifth best. If anything that's a wash.

In 2013 the ACC was 4th and Bennett went 11-7. The PAC was 6th and Miller went 12-6. Seems to be relatively close again.

In 2012 Miller went 12-6 again but in a terrible Pac-12 (10th). Bennett went 9-7 in the 6th rated ACC. I'll give that one to your boy, but it's not as if the ACC was setting the world on fire.

In 2011 the Pac-10 was 7th and the ACC 5th. Miller went 14-4, Bennett went 7-9. Advantage Miller.

In 2010 (both coaches first seasons at their current schools), Miller was 10-8 in the 8th ranked Pac while Bennett was 5-11 in the 3rd ranked ACC.

I think I've demonstrated that your conference argument just doesn't hold water and that the comparison is a wash at best.

Try harder Rocky.

When I said you have to consider he has coached two less seasons and in tougher conferences I was pointing towards his less career victories. Of course, coaching two less seasons would also be two less opportunities to make runs in the NCAA Tournament so there is that too.

You can also point to this season where Virginia is 13-1 in the third best conference according to the RPI and the Wildcats are 12-2 in the sixth best RPI conference. The Pac-12 this season is considered the worst major conference.

You can also point to that high octane tempo UVA plays at and clearly see they are an offensive juggernaut. Bennett is clearly an offensive mastermind when compared to Miller!

RockyRaccoon wrote:

Chicat wrote:What does coaching fewer seasons and in which conference have to do with success in the tourney? Your boy Bennett has exactly two Sweet Sixteen appearances on his resume. Is that because of the strength of the ACC? Wouldn't playing good teams throughout the year actually give a team a leg up in the tourney?

As for your relative conference strength argument, last year Miller went 15-3 in the third best conference in America according to RPI while Bennett went 16-2 in the fifth best. If anything that's a wash.

In 2013 the ACC was 4th and Bennett went 11-7. The PAC was 6th and Miller went 12-6. Seems to be relatively close again.

In 2012 Miller went 12-6 again but in a terrible Pac-12 (10th). Bennett went 9-7 in the 6th rated ACC. I'll give that one to your boy, but it's not as if the ACC was setting the world on fire.

In 2011 the Pac-10 was 7th and the ACC 5th. Miller went 14-4, Bennett went 7-9. Advantage Miller.

In 2010 (both coaches first seasons at their current schools), Miller was 10-8 in the 8th ranked Pac while Bennett was 5-11 in the 3rd ranked ACC.

I think I've demonstrated that your conference argument just doesn't hold water and that the comparison is a wash at best.

Try harder Rocky.

When I said you have to consider he has coached two less seasons and in tougher conferences I was pointing towards his less career victories. Of course, coaching two less seasons would also be two less opportunities to make runs in the NCAA Tournament so there is that too.

You can also point to this season where Virginia is 13-1 in the third best conference according to the RPI and the Wildcats are 12-2 in the sixth best RPI conference. The Pac-12 this season is considered the worst major conference.

Have you also considered the effect of the unbalanced schedule? Tough conference for sure, but only playing UNC, ND, and Duke once has its advantages. They close out the season at Syracuse and at Louisville. Let's see how your fair haired boy handles that adversity before canonization, huh?

You're right about years coaching determining how many chances you have to make the tourney, but if you think he was taking that 2005 12-16 Wazzu team or that 2006 11-17 Wazzu team to the Elite 8, then you might be painting walls in an unventilated room. His dad couldn't even get them to .500. Not sure why you think the son would have them knocking on the door of the Final Four.

I noticed though that you had nothing to say in regards to my historical analysis of conference record and conference strength. Point proven in that regard? I certainly think so...

Chicat wrote:

RockyRaccoon wrote:

Chicat wrote:What does coaching fewer seasons and in which conference have to do with success in the tourney? Your boy Bennett has exactly two Sweet Sixteen appearances on his resume. Is that because of the strength of the ACC? Wouldn't playing good teams throughout the year actually give a team a leg up in the tourney?

As for your relative conference strength argument, last year Miller went 15-3 in the third best conference in America according to RPI while Bennett went 16-2 in the fifth best. If anything that's a wash.

In 2013 the ACC was 4th and Bennett went 11-7. The PAC was 6th and Miller went 12-6. Seems to be relatively close again.

In 2012 Miller went 12-6 again but in a terrible Pac-12 (10th). Bennett went 9-7 in the 6th rated ACC. I'll give that one to your boy, but it's not as if the ACC was setting the world on fire.

In 2011 the Pac-10 was 7th and the ACC 5th. Miller went 14-4, Bennett went 7-9. Advantage Miller.

In 2010 (both coaches first seasons at their current schools), Miller was 10-8 in the 8th ranked Pac while Bennett was 5-11 in the 3rd ranked ACC.

I think I've demonstrated that your conference argument just doesn't hold water and that the comparison is a wash at best.

Try harder Rocky.

When I said you have to consider he has coached two less seasons and in tougher conferences I was pointing towards his less career victories. Of course, coaching two less seasons would also be two less opportunities to make runs in the NCAA Tournament so there is that too.

You can also point to this season where Virginia is 13-1 in the third best conference according to the RPI and the Wildcats are 12-2 in the sixth best RPI conference. The Pac-12 this season is considered the worst major conference.

Have you also considered the effect of the unbalanced schedule? Tough conference for sure, but only playing UNC, ND, and Duke once has its advantages. They close out the season at Syracuse and at Louisville. Let's see how your fair haired boy handles that adversity before canonization, huh?

You're right about years coaching determining how many chances you have to make the tourney, but if you think he was taking that 2005 12-16 Wazzu team or that 2006 11-17 Wazzu team to the Elite 8, then you might be painting walls in an unventilated room. His dad couldn't even get them to .500. Not sure why you think the son would have them knocking on the door of the Final Four.

I noticed though that you had nothing to say in regards to my historical analysis of conference record and conference strength. Point proven in that regard? I certainly think so...

Of course he wasn't going to be making the tournament those first two years but it would have still been him coaching and becoming more comfortable as a head coach for two extra seasons. Maybe with two years experience with his players and his scheme he would have made the Elite 8 with Wazzu one year.

I didn't mention your "historical analysis" because it was obviously close between Miller and Bennett so instead I provided this year as evidence as a sort of tie breaker. Will see how it turns out in the next few weeks.

By the way, I see Miller and Bennett as practically neck and neck in terms of coaching ability.

Eh, maybe without blatant nepotism Bennett would be preaching from the pulpit in some backwater snake-handling congregation somewhere where a full house on Sunday means a collective full set of teeth. We can play the what if game all day. But I'll still take Miller's three Elite 8s over Bennett's two Sweet Sixteens every day of the week.

Yeah I will admit his religious nonsense losses points for me.

I'm not seeing how you can have Bennett over Miller at this point, at all. By any standard or metric.

The old eye test. Bennett is better-looking.

I provided statistics and analysis on why I think he is better. What else can I do?

As I said, they are neck and neck pretty much.

RockyRaccoon wrote:I provided statistics and analysis on why I think he is better. What else can I do?

As I said, they are neck and neck pretty much.

They aren't, but that's ok. You live in your world and we'll live in the real one.

gumby wrote:Is there some reason a really good performance cannot be praised without tearing down some other player? Ristic and York were fantastic. Period.

That's a good thing.

Psychology is also interesting. Zags trailed by 17 last night and won by 10. Fans are pumped. We led by 14. Lost it and won by 10. Fans are glum. That 28 minutes when the Bruins could only muster 23 points? Doesn't count. Crushing them on the boards? Doesn't count. Holding them far below their average? Doesn't count.

If it were 80-70 and we trailed most of the way and shot 50 percent and battled them to a tie on the boards ... that's better?

Kentucky shot 36 percent against Columbia. It happens. Not often you still win by 10.

Too rational Gumby. Watching basketball isnt!

Tony Bennett:

2006–07 Washington State 26–8 13–5 2nd NCAA Second Round
2007–08 Washington State 26–9 11–7 3rd NCAA Sweet Sixteen
2008–09 Washington State 17–16 8–10 7th NIT First Round
Washington State: 69–33 (.676) 32–22 (.593)

2009–10 Virginia 15–16 5–11 T–9th
2010–11 Virginia 16–15 7–9 T–7th
2011–12 Virginia 22–10 9–7 T–4th NCAA Second Round
2012–13 Virginia 23–12 11–7 T–4th NIT Quarterfinals
2013–14 Virginia 30–7 16–2 1st NCAA Sweet Sixteen
2014–15 Virginia 25–1 13–1
Virginia: 131–61 (.682) 61–36 (.629)
Total: 200–94 (.680)


Sean Miller:

2004–05 Xavier 17–12 10–6 T–2nd (West)
2005–06 Xavier 21–11 8–8 T–7th NCAA First Round
2006–07 Xavier 25–9 13–3 T–1st NCAA Second Round
2007–08 Xavier 30–7 14–2 1st NCAA Elite Eight
2008–09 Xavier 27–8 12–4 1st NCAA Sweet Sixteen
Xavier: 120–47 (.719) 55–22 (.714)

2009–10 Arizona 16–15 10–8 4th
2010–11 Arizona 30–8 14–4 1st NCAA Elite Eight
2011–12 Arizona 23–12 12–6 4th NIT First Round
2012–13 Arizona 27–8 12–6 T–2nd NCAA Sweet Sixteen
2013–14 Arizona 33–5 15–3 1st NCAA Elite Eight
2014–15 Arizona 24–3 12–2
Arizona: 153–51 (.750) 75–29 (.721)
Total: 273–98 (.736)

Favors Miller me thinks.

Anderson's status will determine UVA's prospects, sort of like Ashley for us last year. If Anderson comes back, it changes their look considerably.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

UAEebs86 wrote:You guys need to stop confusing Rocky with facts.

It's all about the eye test. His eyes only.

He can't believe in the eye test much if he believes Pitino can coach another 15 years. Statistically, Rick is 62, but use the eye test and he's been dead for a few days.

I keep telling you guys he's a vampire ...

Reydituto wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

UAEebs86 wrote:You guys need to stop confusing Rocky with facts.

It's all about the eye test. His eyes only.

He can't believe in the eye test much if he believes Pitino can coach another 15 years. Statistically, Rick is 62, but use the eye test and he's been dead for a few days.

I keep telling you guys he's a vampire ...