Bear Down Wildcats

No surprise that we lost to UCLA. I couldn't find a single sports pundit that picked Arizona. Not after that devastating loss to Oregon. Their confidence has been in the toilet. There is absolutely no doubt that this team is soft when it counts the most.

Sean Miller simply isn't a big game coach. He's an amazing recruiter, but when it comes to preparing his NBA caliber players for big games against good teams, they almost always fall short. That's why he's likely to never move past the Elite 8.. with any team, no matter how talented.

To be clear, I don't want to lose him. I just wish he could find an assistant that is better at big game preparation than he is to help the program.

Really happy you're back here to post threads like this. I'm sure it's gonna do well for all involved.

Olsondogg wrote:Really happy you're back here to post threads like this. I'm sure it's gonna do well for all involved.

I agree. Candid discussion of Arizona Basketball with knowledgeable fans is one of my favorite past times. Were you at GoAzCats? I don't remember you. If so, did you have a different moniker?

I frequently question Miller, with the qualification that I don't know what I'm talking about. It's legitimate that the Elite Eight question will continue to dog him because he's had so many of those, and he's just going to have break through to make that question go away.

You can call it softness, this complete inability to rebound the ball last night. Markkannen didn't have a monster game, but he did in the first meeting at Pauley, and another NBA player (Trier) last night showed up. Rawle wasn't soft last night. Ristic was soft, and Chance had the kind of off-game we haven't seen in like over a month, so that was the end of that at the 5.

Here's what I don't get about Miller: This frustration with and yelling at Ristic. It's like getting frustrated and yelling at your cat for going into the neighbor's yard. It's a cat. Dusan can't or won't defend and rebound. Keep the cat inside the house. Keep Dusan on the bench. Let him come in and score over a few possessions, and then bench him with a pat on the back while U of A fans say, "Why is he sitting Ristic? They have no answer for him!" Actually, they do, on this very possession, and we need to grab a defensive rebound on the possession after that.

killervibe wrote:No surprise that we lost to UCLA. I couldn't find a single sports pundit that picked Arizona. Not after that devastating loss to Oregon. Their confidence has been in the toilet. There is absolutely no doubt that this team is soft when it counts the most.

Sean Miller simply isn't a big game coach. He's an amazing recruiter, but when it comes to preparing his NBA caliber players for big games against good teams, they almost always fall short. That's why he's likely to never move past the Elite 8.. with any team, no matter how talented.

To be clear, I don't want to lose him. I just wish he could find an assistant that is better at big game preparation than he is to help the program.

Miller didn't miss a single open three....

Longhorned wrote:I frequently question Miller, with the qualification that I don't know what I'm talking about. It's legitimate that the Elite Eight question will continue to dog him because he's had so many of those, and he's just going to have break through to make that question go away.

You can call it softness, this complete inability to rebound the ball last night. Markkannen didn't have a monster game, but he did in the first meeting at Pauley, and another NBA player (Trier) last night showed up. Rawle wasn't soft last night. Ristic was soft, and Chance had the kind of off-game we haven't seen in like over a month, so that was the end of that at the 5.

Here's what I don't get about Miller: This frustration with and yelling at Ristic. It's like getting frustrated and yelling at your cat for going into the neighbor's yard. It's a cat. Dusan can't or won't defend and rebound. Keep the cat inside the house. Keep Dusan on the bench. Let him come in and score over a few possessions, and then bench him with a pat on the back while U of A fans say, "Why is he sitting Ristic? They have no answer for him!" Actually, they do, on this very possession, and we need to grab a defensive rebound on the possession after that.

I one hundred percent agree with this, and this behavior goes back to Zeus. He was who he was, and that could never stop the Pac-12 refs from lighting him up or his arms or hands from being disproportionate to his height.

Ristic just is never going to be that space-eating, pick-and-roll destroying machine in the lane, and you either sub in Comanche for him for more athleticism or live with Dusan's Euro limitations.

killervibe wrote:No surprise that we lost to UCLA. I couldn't find a single sports pundit that picked Arizona. Not after that devastating loss to Oregon. Their confidence has been in the toilet. There is absolutely no doubt that this team is soft when it counts the most.

Sean Miller simply isn't a big game coach. He's an amazing recruiter, but when it comes to preparing his NBA caliber players for big games against good teams, they almost always fall short. That's why he's likely to never move past the Elite 8.. with any team, no matter how talented.

To be clear, I don't want to lose him. I just wish he could find an assistant that is better at big game preparation than he is to help the program.

For a lot of fans, the only big games they remember are the ones we lose.

Miller did fine prepping us to play at Pauley. Frankly, the loss to Zaga was a masterful prep job.

We beat Duke in the Sweet 16 and NYC. We beat a highly ranked Michigan on the road. There was the Florida game at McKale. Last year we were a pretty meh team, but beat Gonzaga at Gonzaga, our best OOC game.

Across his career, he does fine. Fans just remember the losses.

I Agree with the spaceman...

We are currently sitting at 26-4 tied for first in one of the toughest top heavy conferences in the nation after a dumpster fire of a beginning season...

No one would throw this kind of shade at Bill Self if his season reflected ours, or Mike Kryshfgfsrdhdjfjki, or Bonehim, or Calimari, or even Alterman...

The fact that anyone raises these kind of posts just shows that you actually expect more from Millers teams than you get so you mouth it off.

Lets look at the facts...the Pac 12 is incredibly strong at the top...quite possibly stronger than any other conference...

Barring player injuries or suspensions we have ONLY lost to the top two teams in the conference...something the other two top teams CANNOT say.

We have only lost to teams that have a mix of maturity and strong recruits, hell Gonzaga has been playing together forever, they play 1 freshman we play three...we have ONE senior, Butler has 6.

Now everyone likes to believe that Cinderella stories and "giant killers" are the norm for the NCAA tourney but this is just not the truth...it happens on occasion and everyone remembers it because it is so amazing, but the fact that it is an odd event is what makes it amazing, the normal run of the mill number crunching tournament is mostly about top teams crunching or at least beating the lesser teams...it happens the MAJORITY of the time.

Miller has managed to squeeze every bit of talent out of very volatile freshmen and an incredibly rocky season to get this team to the top tier where they can win simply by the numbers...and make no mistake IT IS A NUMBERS GAME.

You don't like what he has done that is just your opinion man...but the numbers will bear him out...the numbers will not lie.

The entire world of one and done is changing the way this sport is played...Miller is best poised to get Arizona basketball into a natty probably as well as ANY nationally recognized program...just because it hasn't happened yet is no indication that it won't the odds are in our favor.

Consider this... even with the loss, we're a complete Cal collapse and amazing Dillon Brooks heroics (x 2) away from clinching the conference title outright with a win over asu. Even with all of that, we're still a win away from sharing the title in an historically strong year at the top of the Pac-12.

Have some perspective.

Sure it feels like our world has ended today, but I try not to be one of those fans Miller targeted a couple years ago with his "go cheer for asu" tweet, because anything short of perfection won't please them. We lost to a top-5 team who played a GREAT game, and our biggest flaw was typically our biggest strength: rebounding. It's correctable, at least. Still a lot of games to be played.

BEAR DOWN!

Longhorned wrote:I frequently question Miller, with the qualification that I don't know what I'm talking about. It's legitimate that the Elite Eight question will continue to dog him because he's had so many of those, and he's just going to have break through to make that question go away.

You can call it softness, this complete inability to rebound the ball last night. Markkannen didn't have a monster game, but he did in the first meeting at Pauley, and another NBA player (Trier) last night showed up. Rawle wasn't soft last night. Ristic was soft, and Chance had the kind of off-game we haven't seen in like over a month, so that was the end of that at the 5.

Here's what I don't get about Miller: This frustration with and yelling at Ristic. It's like getting frustrated and yelling at your cat for going into the neighbor's yard. It's a cat. Dusan can't or won't defend and rebound. Keep the cat inside the house. Keep Dusan on the bench. Let him come in and score over a few possessions, and then bench him with a pat on the back while U of A fans say, "Why is he sitting Ristic? They have no answer for him!" Actually, they do, on this very possession, and we need to grab a defensive rebound on the possession after that.

Me personally, I'd go with options A and B. I cant think of a more frustrating player. I cant think of any player, Arizona basketball or an ex-teammate from my personal life, that makes so many mental mistakes, poor decisions, that spaces out completely, that makes things 100x more difficult than they have to be. I dont want to be completely mean, but its like the dudes brain just does not function when he steps onto a basketball court. Yes he is slow physically, but some of the tools he has, and size, should more than make up for most of that.

rgdeuce wrote:

Longhorned wrote:I frequently question Miller, with the qualification that I don't know what I'm talking about. It's legitimate that the Elite Eight question will continue to dog him because he's had so many of those, and he's just going to have break through to make that question go away.

You can call it softness, this complete inability to rebound the ball last night. Markkannen didn't have a monster game, but he did in the first meeting at Pauley, and another NBA player (Trier) last night showed up. Rawle wasn't soft last night. Ristic was soft, and Chance had the kind of off-game we haven't seen in like over a month, so that was the end of that at the 5.

Here's what I don't get about Miller: This frustration with and yelling at Ristic. It's like getting frustrated and yelling at your cat for going into the neighbor's yard. It's a cat. Dusan can't or won't defend and rebound. Keep the cat inside the house. Keep Dusan on the bench. Let him come in and score over a few possessions, and then bench him with a pat on the back while U of A fans say, "Why is he sitting Ristic? They have no answer for him!" Actually, they do, on this very possession, and we need to grab a defensive rebound on the possession after that.

Me personally, I'd go with options A and B. I cant think of a more frustrating player. I cant think of any player, Arizona basketball or an ex-teammate from my personal life, that makes so many mental mistakes, poor decisions, that spaces out completely, that makes things 100x more difficult than they have to be. I dont want to be completely mean, but its like the dudes brain just does not function when he steps onto a basketball court. Yes he is slow physically, but some of the tools he has, and size, should more than make up for most of that.

I don't think it's mean. On-the-court intelligence requires a kind of sped-up time that doesn't often apply to real life, and many truly brilliant people don't have the kind of court smarts Larry Bird spoke of, and which a player like Rondae has in spades, as does Lauri, though with a greater skill set to boot. Gabe York doesn't have it at all. Ristic doesn't have it. What concerns me is the role that Miller gave York over Rondae and later over Trier, and now the square peg in a round hole we see with Ristic as the top center in the rotation.

Smarts are a part of talent. Play your best players. Play your smartest players. Let the talent play. Talent wins national championships. Talent and experience together used to win national championships, as it did in a strange season last year, but this year talent will win a national championship.

They've played 5 games against teams currently ranked and they went 1-4 in those games. I'm not looking for perfection but the facts support my point that he's been unable to consistently prepare this team for big games against good teams this season. Heck, 2-3 would show some minimal consistently but 1-4 shows no ability to repeat success with in those scenarios.

Sure, you can throw in lots of coulda, woulda, shoulda scenarios but those mean nothing, they exist only in a hypothetical world.

killervibe wrote:They've played 5 games against teams currently ranked and they went 1-4 in those games. I'm not looking for perfection but the facts support my point that he's been unable to consistently prepare this team for big games against good teams this season. Heck, 2-3 would show some minimal consistently but 1-4 shows no ability to repeat success with in those scenarios.

Sure, you can throw in lots of coulda, woulda, shoulda scenarios but those mean nothing, they exist only in a hypothetical world.

First off, you're grounding your opinion of Miller in this year only. Other years where we have produced in big games...did he forget?

Next, I'm sorry, but it isn't making excuses or playing coulda, woulda, shoulda to point out that we were shorthanded for two of those games. Bluntly, you could have resurrected Wooden, and put Red Auerbach and Phil Jackson as assistants and we weren't beating Gonzaga with 7 scholarship players. Miller's coaching performance in getting us ready for that game was great. A lot of teams would have folded under Zaga's early run with the mental situation of PJC being freshly hurt.

Third, I've repeatedly posted about how disappointed I was in getting beat on the boards, but we played one of our best defensive games of the year and were lights out on offense in the first half. The narrative that we weren't prepared is just not correct.

No one's happy, but this is a massive overreaction.

Picking and Choosing 101. Gonna tell me Number 12 at the time Michigan St on a ship freshly off hearing the Zo news and Ray Smith just tearing his ACL wasn't a huge game? Damn near everyone thought UCLA would mop us the first time so we had to absolutely beat USC (tournamen team) to get a split to those same people, so is USC now not a big game? Really gonna bring up Zaga like we really didn't have walk on get minutes in that game because the rotation was that short? Fuck outta here with this, sick of the automatic Miller smear fest anytime we lose a game

Main Event wrote:Picking and Choosing 101. Gonna tell me Number 12 at the time Michigan St on a ship freshly off hearing the Zo news and Ray Smith just tearing his ACL wasn't a huge game? Damn near everyone thought UCLA would mop us the first time so we had to absolutely beat USC (tournamen team) to get a split to those same people, so is USC now not a big game? Really gonna bring up Zaga like we really didn't have walk on get minutes in that game because the rotation was that short? Fuck outta here with this, sick of the automatic Miller smear fest anytime we lose a game

They're only big when we lose. When we win, we were supposed to.

This doesn't seem right but UA is 4 and 3 as a dog this year. All were under 6 points but at Cal and Texas A and M don't seem right that UA wasn't favored

PHXCATS wrote:This doesn't seem right but UA is 4 and 3 as a dog this year. All were under 6 points but at Cal and Texas A and M don't seem right that UA wasn't favored

People didn't expect us to be 26-4. The aTm game was basically a road game with a shorthanded team. Cal, we had PJC barely back and we hadn't really proved much.

We had a lot of people who didn't see us as a legit contender prior to UCLA in LA. A lot of the underperforming argument is monday morning quarterbacking. When we lost PJC, how many people would have been mad with 26-4 because we've lost to 4 top 25 teams?

Losses to four basically top-ten teams the way Butler is playing right now.

Can't change the facts at all, but there are really good teams out there that have dropped home losses to unranked teams. Anyone can, and has, lost...several to unranked opponents--something Arizona has yet to do.

So we can beat 95% of the teams but not the top 5%. Good, because you don't need to beat the top teams in the tournament.

Interesting considering that I do remember Arizona beating a top team on the road by double digits....but we can't do that.

It's the same stupid argument every year. You can either focus on the positives or the negatives and rule something one way or another.

Killervibe would have had multiple strokes, heart attacks, and countless pointless posts in 1997.

I was there and saw:

Losses @ New Mexico, Michigan, USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Stanford, CAL

Home loss to UCLA.

Watching Digger Phelps go nuts asking who Lute paid off to get a 4 seed, the team was a "bubble" team at best.

Looking completely clueless against a directional Alabama school for 36 minutes in round 1.

Looking like the best team in the nation after knocking off Kansas, only to have God nearly take it all away in an epic collapse, God Shammgod.

Then being 50 to 1 underdogs in the final 4. Only to watch them run Kentucky off the court in OT, Cats could have gone another half.

Teams will have ups and downs, takes some magic to hit it all. The pieces are there this year.

NYCat wrote:So we can beat 95% of the teams but not the top 5%. Good, because you don't need to beat the top teams in the tournament.

I posted a paraphrased version of this a while back:

If you can't beat the top teams, you have to worry in the NCAA tourney because you will play top teams.

If you've dropped a few to middling teams, you have to worry in the NCAA tourney because you apparently take games off.

If you're undefeated, you have to worry in the NCAA tourney because you have a ton of pressure and a bullseye on your back.

In essence, you worry

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
First off, you're grounding your opinion of Miller in this year only. Other years where we have produced in big games...did he forget?

No one's happy, but this is a massive overreaction.

I was simply using this season's to highlight my point, I'm not basing my entire opinion on this year alone. If it helps, here's a break down of the past few years:

2015/2016 Big Games Against Good Teams
@ #13 Gonzaga - Win
@ UCLA - Loss
@ USC - Loss
@ #23 Oregon - Loss
#23 USC - Win
@ #22 Utah - Loss
#25 Cal - Win
Pac 12 Semis, #8 Oregon - Loss
NCAA Tourney First Round, Wichita State - Loss
Record in big games: 3 - 6

2014/2015 Big Games Against Good Teams
#15 SDST - Win
#9 Gonzaga - Win
#8 Utah - Win
#13 Utah - Win
Pac 12 Championship, Oregon - Win
Sweet 16, Xavier - Win
Elite 8, Wisconsin - Loss
Record in big games - 6 -1 (the one loss being the biggest game of the season)

2013/2014 Big Games Against Good Teams
NIT Championship, #6 Duke - Win
@ (unranked) Michigan - Win
Pac 12 Championship, UCLA - Loss
Sweet 16, SDSU - Win
Elite 8, Wisconsin - Loss
Record in big games: 3-2 (the Pac 12 was really soft this year, I believe this was the year only two teams made the tourney)


2012/2013 Big Games Against Good Teams
#5 Florida - Win
#17 SDSU - Win
Pac 12 Semifinals, UCLA - Loss
Sweet 16, Ohio State - Loss
Record in big games: 2-2

2011/2012 Big Games Against Good Teams
2K Sports Championship, Mississippi State - Loss
#23 SDSU - Loss
@#12 Florida - Loss
Gonzaga - Loss
Wooden Classic, UCLA - Loss
Pac 12 Championship, Colorado - Loss
NCAA Tourney First Rd, Bucknell - Loss
Record in big games: 0 - 7

Total Record in Big games Against Good Teams: 14 - 18

I don't see any consistency winning big games with a sub .500 win rate. Do you? What am I missing Spiff?

P.S. Enjoying the debate.. keep it coming.

Olsondogg wrote:In essence, you worry

If this team would have played the same game they played against CAL, that same intensity, same effort level, they beat UCLA, by double digits again. The defensive intensity was there, but they for some ungodly reason, stopped fighting for rebounds, but an easy fix.

The tourney is going to be fun this year, I don't see them taking possessions off, in a do or go home scenario.

These debates are fun because unless you end the NCAA without a loss, you always end up losing the biggest game of your season.

In essence, if Arizona busts down the door this year and gets to a Final 4, and then loses that game....there will still be complaints that Miller can't win the biggest game of the season.

Arizona has lost 4 games, 3 to teams in the TOP 6 in the country & 1 to #13. Only one of those at home.

Stupid post is stupid.


Criticize the trouble with the zone. Don't say Miller can't get the team up for big games. The discussion really ends with one classic locker room phrase pre Duke in the S16, "Nastiness is Required".

And they brought it. I'm a little upset at myself I even posted in this thread.

killervibe wrote:I was simply using this season's to highlight my point, I'm not basing my entire opinion on this year alone. If it helps, here's a break down of the past few years:

2015/2016 Big Games Against Good Teams
@ #13 Gonzaga - Win
@ UCLA - Loss
@ USC - Loss
@ #23 Oregon - Loss
#23 USC - Win
@ #22 Utah - Loss
#25 Cal - Win
Pac 12 Semis, #8 Oregon - Loss
NCAA Tourney First Round, Wichita State - Loss
Record in big games: 3 - 6

2014/2015 Big Games Against Good Teams
#15 SDST - Win
#9 Gonzaga - Win
#8 Utah - Win
#13 Utah - Win
Pac 12 Championship, Oregon - Win
Sweet 16, Xavier - Win
Elite 8, Wisconsin - Loss
Record in big games - 6 -1 (the one loss being the biggest game of the season)

2013/2014 Big Games Against Good Teams
NIT Championship, #6 Duke - Win
@ (unranked) Michigan - Win
Pac 12 Championship, UCLA - Loss
Sweet 16, SDSU - Win
Elite 8, Wisconsin - Loss
Record in big games: 3-2 (the Pac 12 was really soft this year, I believe this was the year only two teams made the tourney)


2012/2013 Big Games Against Good Teams
#5 Florida - Win
#17 SDSU - Win
Pac 12 Semifinals, UCLA - Loss
Sweet 16, Ohio State - Loss
Record in big games: 2-2

2011/2012 Big Games Against Good Teams
2K Sports Championship, Mississippi State - Loss
#23 SDSU - Loss
@#12 Florida - Loss
Gonzaga - Loss
Wooden Classic, UCLA - Loss
Pac 12 Championship, Colorado - Loss
NCAA Tourney First Rd, Bucknell - Loss
Record in big games: 0 - 7

Total Record in Big games Against Good Teams: 14 - 18

I don't see any consistency winning big games with a .500 win rate. Do you? What am I missing Spiff?

P.S. Enjoying the debate.. keep it coming.

Yeah, I think how you do vs good teams in the regular season is very predictable of how'll you'll do in post season. Right now we're 1-4.

UCLA seems to be the only good win tbh. Where are all the other good wins vs good teams. Cal is a middle class team nationally (great defensively) who doesn't have 20 wins yet in the PAC 12 - arguably the worst power 5 conference or second worst at best. USC? Nah. And then we've struggled vs sub par competition in conference play.

So 1-4 vs top 25. We're 3-0 vs top 50 teams, that's not that much experience vs good teams. We've only played 3 games vs teams that are ranked 26-50. Not the best competition faced this year. 2 of those wins are Cal, who are ranked in the high 40s, barely a top 50.

So when Arizona does face good competition -injuries and missing players aside- they lose. It's very similar to last year, where we weren't good vs the better teams and got our asses kicked when we faced a good team in the tournament.

Olsondogg wrote:In essence, if Arizona busts down the door this year and gets to a Final 4, and then loses that game....there will still be complaints that Miller can't win the biggest game of the season.

Yeah, the same happened to Bo Ryan before he retired. He could make it to the Final 4 but just couldn't break through to the Championship game.. until he did.. sadly he couldn't get the win. But your point is well made.

NYCat wrote:So 1-4 vs top 25. We're 3-0 vs top 50 teams, that's not that much experience vs good teams. We've only played 3 games vs teams that are ranked 26-50. Not the best competition faced this year. 2 of those wins are Cal, who are ranked in the high 40s, barely a top 50.

So when Arizona does face good competition -injuries and missing players aside- they lose. It's very similar to last year, where we weren't good vs the better teams and got our asses kicked when we faced a good team in the tournament.

Yep, this is my point. We're on the same page.

killervibe wrote:

Olsondogg wrote:In essence, if Arizona busts down the door this year and gets to a Final 4, and then loses that game....there will still be complaints that Miller can't win the biggest game of the season.

Yeah, the same happened to Bo Ryan before he retired. He could make it to the Final 4 but just couldn't break through to the Championship game.. until he did.. sadly he couldn't get the win. But your point is well made.

Ryan couldn't make it to a Final Four either until he did. Two years before he retired.

Can somebody smarter than me explain:

1) Why losing to strong teams is more a concerning factor for predicting tourney success than losing to weaker teams

2) Why there's enough concern about the early losses to Butler and Gonzaga to include those in a pattern of losing to strong teams

3) Who the "real" Final Four teams are that would beat Oregon at Eugene, other than UCLA who almost beat them and against whom Arizona is 1-1

4) Why we're defining strong and weak teams from the moving perspective of today instead of the pre-season or the date of our games against them. For example, it sounds like Cal is understood here as not a particularly strong team, even though Oregon squeaked by them. Won't we have a better sense of Cal's strength after the tourney than today?

Thanks in advance.

ChooChooCat wrote:Ryan couldn't make it to a Final Four either until he did. Two years before he retired.

You're right, I just looked it up. For some reason I recalled that differently. My bad. Bad example. Probably the pain of all the loses to Wisconsin in the tournament made me think they had progressed further in the tourney than they actually had. I don't follow Wisconsin that closely.

Longhorned wrote:Can somebody smarter than me explain:

1) Why losing to strong teams is more a concerning factor for predicting tourney success than losing to weaker teams

2) Why there's enough concern about the early losses to Butler and Gonzaga to include those in a pattern of losing to strong teams

3) Who the "real" Final Four teams are that would beat Oregon at Eugene, other than UCLA who almost beat them and against whom Arizona is 1-1

4) Why we're defining strong and weak teams from the moving perspective of today instead of the pre-season or the date of our games against them. For example, it sounds like Cal is understood here as not a particularly strong team, even though Oregon squeaked by them. Won't we have a better sense of Cal's strength after the tourney than today?

Thanks in advance.

Not sure if you're joking on this or not.. so apologies if they're rhetorical questions.

1) Because historically only the best teams make it into the tourney.
2) Because it continues a multi-year trend of sub .500 wins against good/great teams
3) Lose to OU or lose by 30+
4) This is the million dollar question that RPI, BPI, and SOS try to address but its rarely perfect.

killervibe wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
First off, you're grounding your opinion of Miller in this year only. Other years where we have produced in big games...did he forget?

No one's happy, but this is a massive overreaction.

I was simply using this season's to highlight my point, I'm not basing my entire opinion on this year alone. If it helps, here's a break down of the past few years:

2015/2016 Big Games Against Good Teams
@ #13 Gonzaga - Win
@ UCLA - Loss
@ USC - Loss
@ #23 Oregon - Loss
#23 USC - Win
@ #22 Utah - Loss
#25 Cal - Win
Pac 12 Semis, #8 Oregon - Loss
NCAA Tourney First Round, Wichita State - Loss
Record in big games: 3 - 6

2014/2015 Big Games Against Good Teams
#15 SDST - Win
#9 Gonzaga - Win
#8 Utah - Win
#13 Utah - Win
Pac 12 Championship, Oregon - Win
Sweet 16, Xavier - Win
Elite 8, Wisconsin - Loss
Record in big games - 6 -1 (the one loss being the biggest game of the season)

2013/2014 Big Games Against Good Teams
NIT Championship, #6 Duke - Win
@ (unranked) Michigan - Win
Pac 12 Championship, UCLA - Loss
Sweet 16, SDSU - Win
Elite 8, Wisconsin - Loss
Record in big games: 3-2 (the Pac 12 was really soft this year, I believe this was the year only two teams made the tourney)


2012/2013 Big Games Against Good Teams
#5 Florida - Win
#17 SDSU - Win
Pac 12 Semifinals, UCLA - Loss
Sweet 16, Ohio State - Loss
Record in big games: 2-2

2011/2012 Big Games Against Good Teams
2K Sports Championship, Mississippi State - Loss
#23 SDSU - Loss
@#12 Florida - Loss
Gonzaga - Loss
Wooden Classic, UCLA - Loss
Pac 12 Championship, Colorado - Loss
NCAA Tourney First Rd, Bucknell - Loss
Record in big games: 0 - 7

Total Record in Big games Against Good Teams: 14 - 18

I don't see any consistency winning big games with a sub .500 win rate. Do you? What am I missing Spiff?

P.S. Enjoying the debate.. keep it coming.

If you consider that we didn't have good teams last year or in 2011-12, the numbers paint a much different picture. The 2011-2012 team lost in the NIT, not NCAA, and all those Big Games were against good teams, which we were not (2012). I don't think they have any relevance in determining how we fare in Big Games. While how much weight should be given to last year's team can be debated, removing 2012 makes the overall record 14-11, and removing last year makes it 11-5.

prh wrote: If you consider that we didn't have good teams last year or in 2011-12, the numbers paint a much different picture. The 2011-2012 team lost in the NIT, not NCAA, and all those Big Games were against good teams, which we were not (2012). I don't think they have any relevance in determining how we fare in Big Games. While how much weight should be given to last year's team can be debated, removing 2012 makes the overall record 14-11, and removing last year makes it 11-5.

So we should only evaluate a coach's success based on years they have a good team? Is that what you're saying?

Who are the good coaches?

killervibe wrote:

prh wrote: If you consider that we didn't have good teams last year or in 2011-12, the numbers paint a much different picture. The 2011-2012 team lost in the NIT, not NCAA, and all those Big Games were against good teams, which we were not (2012). I don't think they have any relevance in determining how we fare in Big Games. While how much weight should be given to last year's team can be debated, removing 2012 makes the overall record 14-11, and removing last year makes it 11-5.

So we should only evaluate a coach's success based on years they have a good team? Is that what you're saying?

Depends on what the coach inherited. Considering Miller inherited a dumpster fire in 2010, was WAY ahead of schedule in 2011, and fell a bit behind because one of his central recruits in 2010 whom he didn't expect to lose after two years was too good to stay. If Miller had a seamless transition in 2010 then I would blame him for 2012, but he didn't. If he had a non-tourney season at Arizona for any remainder of his time here then absolutely 100% he deserves to be shit on.

isn't the other team in a matchup against a big opponent also playing a big opponent?

So grabbing about half of those games is about right.

killervibe wrote:

Longhorned wrote:Can somebody smarter than me explain:

1) Why losing to strong teams is more a concerning factor for predicting tourney success than losing to weaker teams

2) Why there's enough concern about the early losses to Butler and Gonzaga to include those in a pattern of losing to strong teams

3) Who the "real" Final Four teams are that would beat Oregon at Eugene, other than UCLA who almost beat them and against whom Arizona is 1-1

4) Why we're defining strong and weak teams from the moving perspective of today instead of the pre-season or the date of our games against them. For example, it sounds like Cal is understood here as not a particularly strong team, even though Oregon squeaked by them. Won't we have a better sense of Cal's strength after the tourney than today?

Thanks in advance.

Not sure if you're joking on this or not.. so apologies if they're rhetorical questions.

1) Because historically only the best teams make it into the tourney.
2) Because it continues a multi-year trend of sub .500 wins against good/great teams
3) Lose to OU or lose by 30+
4) This is the million dollar question that RPI, BPI, and SOS try to address but its rarely perfect.

I'm not joking. I honestly don't get it, so thanks for your response.

1) Why losing to strong teams is more a concerning factor for predicting tourney success than losing to weaker teams Because historically only the best teams make it into the tourney. Teams like this year's Cal, USC, and Stanford also make it into the tourney. I'd think losing to them, or non-tourney teams, would be more a more concerning, and not less concerning, indicator than losing to Oregon, UCLA, Gonzaga, or Butler. Kansas, for example, seems to beat good teams, but lost to Indiana (a bad team from the perspective of today, if that's what we're adhering to), and at home to Iowa State.

2) Why there's enough concern about the early losses to Butler and Gonzaga to include those in a pattern of losing to strong teams Because it continues a multi-year trend of sub .500 wins against good/great teams Fair enough, assuming the data supports Miller's record against top-25 teams as an outlier with respect to coaches whose programs have a better success rate in reaching the Final Four. I just don't know.

3) Who the "real" Final Four teams are that would beat Oregon at Eugene, other than UCLA who almost beat them and against whom Arizona is 1-1 Lose to OU or lose by 30+ I think it would be a fair question to ask how many teams would have beaten Oregon in Eugene on a day when Oregon made 3-pointers like they did that day. If we're going to put Oregon on a pedestal for beating Arizona by 27, then how do we explain Oregon's performances against the same competition Arizona has faced.

4) Why we're defining strong and weak teams from the moving perspective of today instead of the pre-season or the date of our games against them. For example, it sounds like Cal is understood here as not a particularly strong team, even though Oregon squeaked by them. Won't we have a better sense of Cal's strength after the tourney than today? This is the million dollar question that RPI, BPI, and SOS try to address but its rarely perfect. Thanks.

killervibe wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
First off, you're grounding your opinion of Miller in this year only. Other years where we have produced in big games...did he forget?

No one's happy, but this is a massive overreaction.

I was simply using this season's to highlight my point, I'm not basing my entire opinion on this year alone. If it helps, here's a break down of the past few years:

2015/2016 Big Games Against Good Teams
@ #13 Gonzaga - Win
@ UCLA - Loss
@ USC - Loss
@ #23 Oregon - Loss
#23 USC - Win
@ #22 Utah - Loss
#25 Cal - Win
Pac 12 Semis, #8 Oregon - Loss
NCAA Tourney First Round, Wichita State - Loss
Record in big games: 3 - 6

2014/2015 Big Games Against Good Teams
#15 SDST - Win
#9 Gonzaga - Win
#8 Utah - Win
#13 Utah - Win
Pac 12 Championship, Oregon - Win
Sweet 16, Xavier - Win
Elite 8, Wisconsin - Loss
Record in big games - 6 -1 (the one loss being the biggest game of the season)

2013/2014 Big Games Against Good Teams
NIT Championship, #6 Duke - Win
@ (unranked) Michigan - Win
Pac 12 Championship, UCLA - Loss
Sweet 16, SDSU - Win
Elite 8, Wisconsin - Loss
Record in big games: 3-2 (the Pac 12 was really soft this year, I believe this was the year only two teams made the tourney)


2012/2013 Big Games Against Good Teams
#5 Florida - Win
#17 SDSU - Win
Pac 12 Semifinals, UCLA - Loss
Sweet 16, Ohio State - Loss
Record in big games: 2-2

2011/2012 Big Games Against Good Teams
2K Sports Championship, Mississippi State - Loss
#23 SDSU - Loss
@#12 Florida - Loss
Gonzaga - Loss
Wooden Classic, UCLA - Loss
Pac 12 Championship, Colorado - Loss
NCAA Tourney First Rd, Bucknell - Loss
Record in big games: 0 - 7

Total Record in Big games Against Good Teams: 14 - 18

I don't see any consistency winning big games with a sub .500 win rate. Do you? What am I missing Spiff?

P.S. Enjoying the debate.. keep it coming.

So, my first point is that you seem to pick and choose some teams. UCLA for example, you have some games listed and a number of our wins left off.

I tend to say we shouldn't use the end tourney game unless we count earlier games. Only one of 68 teams doesn't automatically pick up a loss in a big game.

Third, the 0-7 in 2011-12 is all that prevents us from winning 56% of your selected big games. We were a NIT team that year.

Finally, about 50% in big games isn't too odd. Most coaches are pretty close to that mark in NCAA games, all of which are big games in my eyes. Miller actually has a pretty good tourney record compared, and I don't think you can cut out games just bc they are pre-Sweet 16.

NCAA tourney records are the fairest 1-1 comparison, IMO. Miller is around a 66% winning percentage. That is in the upper echelon with some real legends.

killervibe wrote:

prh wrote: If you consider that we didn't have good teams last year or in 2011-12, the numbers paint a much different picture. The 2011-2012 team lost in the NIT, not NCAA, and all those Big Games were against good teams, which we were not (2012). I don't think they have any relevance in determining how we fare in Big Games. While how much weight should be given to last year's team can be debated, removing 2012 makes the overall record 14-11, and removing last year makes it 11-5.

So we should only evaluate a coach's success based on years they have a good team? Is that what you're saying?

Not quite, I failed to be clear about my point. What I'm getting at is that the discussion of showing up in big games is more nuanced than record against good teams. Taking 2012 for example, I'm not going to say "that team failed to show up in all its big games," I'm going to say "that was a bad team, and would be expected to lose most of those games." While the team was still bad, and possibly the coaching job lacked on some levels, it's not quite the same as discussing the 2014 team and how that team (14) prepared and performed in big games. We can all agree that as a program, 2012 was not a successful year. But I think using our performance against good teams (2012) and trying to extrapolate it to a team such as 2014/2015/2017 might be somewhat inaccurate.

Spiff's post preceding this one also does a good job of touching the point I was trying to make.

I like that Miller can't seem to win the big games, and that he may not be that great of a coach...all being discussed in a year in which he's the frontrunner for national coach of the year, as well as p12 coach of the year.

Olsondogg wrote:...all being discussed in a year in which he's the frontrunner for national coach of the year, as well as p12 coach of the year.

Dude, I get the sense that you're just trying to be a dick rather than debate the topic. If that's the case.. its cool. I'll just know to ignore you in the future. Easy enough to do. However, to respond to this post.. its true that Miller is being mentioned but he's not the front-runner. He hasn't been since the Oregon blow-out.

Regardless, if you want to focus exclusively on his performance this year, he's 1-4 in games against ranked teams. That's a fact, there's no debating it.

What can be debated is whether its an indicator for future success. With the Pac-12 and NCAA tourney coming up, he can slam the door shut on this conversation by winning the Pac-12 and making it to the Final Four.. or he can flame out early in one or both tourneys and add more relevant data points to my argument. Time will tell. I hope he proves me wrong.

Go ahead and block me. It's clear you don't know shit and have a clear goal in your posts. As was the case at TOS

Olsondogg wrote:Go ahead and block me.

Duly noted and done. Sounds like we have some history, though I really don't remember you. At all. Either way, its been years. At some point you have to let go of the hate and stop being a douche. Anyways, consider those my final words to you. Back into the oblivion of my life you go.

I'm not sure which threads are worse... OP's or riseandfire? Both are terrible

I can't tell if OP is trolling or just saying dumb shit (i guess those two things kind of go hand-in-hand).

killervibe wrote:

Olsondogg wrote:...all being discussed in a year in which he's the frontrunner for national coach of the year, as well as p12 coach of the year.

Dude, I get the sense that you're just trying to be a dick rather than debate the topic. If that's the case.. its cool. I'll just know to ignore you in the future. Easy enough to do. However, to respond to this post.. its true that Miller is being mentioned but he's not the front-runner. He hasn't been since the Oregon blow-out.

Regardless, if you want to focus exclusively on his performance this year, he's 1-4 in games against ranked teams. That's a fact, there's no debating it.

What can be debated is whether its an indicator for future success. With the Pac-12 and NCAA tourney coming up, he can slam the door shut on this conversation by winning the Pac-12 and making it to the Final Four.. or he can flame out early in one or both tourneys and add more relevant data points to my argument. Time will tell. I hope he proves me wrong.

Ummm...Actually he's 2-4 against ranked teams so yeah its debatable...MSU was 12 when we beat them...if you're gonna use a floating ranking then it's still debatable...