Bear Down Wildcats

Archie is available

The solution is so obvious. Extend Sean, bring Archie back, profit.

It's so obvious, I'm seriously concerned Robbins won't do it.

Sean Miller to Indiana
Archie Miller to Arizona

Alieberman wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 11:40 am Sean Miller to Indiana
Archie Miller to Arizona

Indiana wants their glory back. Brad Stevens if they want to do it relatively cleanly. Pitino if they want to do it quick and dirty. Alford if they want to remember just how long ago the glory years were.

What a shock. Robbins literally might be unstable

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 11:53 am

Alieberman wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 11:40 am Sean Miller to Indiana
Archie Miller to Arizona

Indiana wants their glory back. Brad Stevens if they want to do it relatively cleanly. Pitino if they want to do it quick and dirty. Alford if they want to remember just how long ago the glory years were.

Why would Stevens leave the NBA? even if he leaves Boston, there would be plenty of NBA teams willing to give him another opportunity in the NBA.

If I was IU, I would go hard after Drew or Oates. Realistically, I think they hire Matta, Pitino, or Belein. Dark-horse: Musselman

azgreg wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 11:54 am

Great. This just feels like another impending disaster brought on by Robbins's ego.

azgreg wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 11:54 am

But of course. Why opt for stability, continuity, and baseline predictability when you can dickpunch yourself?

If you followed the football coaching hire fiasco this news should be in no way a surprise.

Time for some people with some balls to circle the wagons, make the BOR aware, and put Robbins in his place. He wasn't hired to run the athletic department. He was hired to oversee the academics of a major university and to make sure whoever was running the AD was doing it properly. Robbins needs to be reminded of that, even if it means firing his ass.

Chicat wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 12:15 pm If you followed the football coaching hire fiasco this news should be in no way a surprise.

The frustrating part is seeing Robbins justify his meddling because the Fisch hire "went well" and won back alienated alums.

1. Alienating everyone then winning them back is not a great baseline strategy.

2. No disrespect to Fisch, but he hasn't played a single game. Again, no disrespect, but if we suck next year, no one's gonna care if Gronk and Bruschi coached the spring game. It's a little early to be calling that a success, let alone justification for Robbins having a blank check.

Edit: I mean, doctors really helped John Wayne Bobbitt bounce back, but that doesn't mean someone else's plan A should be to chop off their genitals.

Athletics aside, Robbins has been a disaster for the University. I have no idea how he still has this job

Archie out

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 12:25 pm

Chicat wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 12:15 pm If you followed the football coaching hire fiasco this news should be in no way a surprise.

The frustrating part is seeing Robbins justify his meddling because the Fisch hire "went well" and won back alienated alums.

1. Alienating everyone then winning them back is not a great baseline strategy.

2. No disrespect to Fisch, but he hasn't played a single game. Again, no disrespect, but if we suck next year, no one's gonna care if Gronk and Bruschi coached the spring game. It's a little early to be calling that a success, let alone justification for Robbins having a blank check.

Edit: I mean, doctors really helped John Wayne Bobbitt bounce back, but that doesn't mean someone else's plan A should be to chop off their genitals.

{Fisch] has won over fans before he has even coached a game.

Like who? Machina? I think the best is we are all just waiting to see. "Giving him a chance" is not "winning over fans".

Merkin wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:03 pm

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 12:25 pm

Chicat wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 12:15 pm If you followed the football coaching hire fiasco this news should be in no way a surprise.

The frustrating part is seeing Robbins justify his meddling because the Fisch hire "went well" and won back alienated alums.

1. Alienating everyone then winning them back is not a great baseline strategy.

2. No disrespect to Fisch, but he hasn't played a single game. Again, no disrespect, but if we suck next year, no one's gonna care if Gronk and Bruschi coached the spring game. It's a little early to be calling that a success, let alone justification for Robbins having a blank check.

Edit: I mean, doctors really helped John Wayne Bobbitt bounce back, but that doesn't mean someone else's plan A should be to chop off their genitals.

{Fisch] has won over fans before he has even coached a game.

Like who? Machina? I think the best is we are all just waiting to see. "Giving him a chance" is not "winning over fans".

I think fans have liked him and how he's brought energy and engagement.

That said, that will mean as much as a warm bucket of spit if he doesn't win. That's why it's so insane Fisch gave Robbins this apparent confidence to meddle. At best, so far Fisch has achieved a honeymoon period.

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 12:25 pm

Chicat wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 12:15 pm If you followed the football coaching hire fiasco this news should be in no way a surprise.

The frustrating part is seeing Robbins justify his meddling because the Fisch hire "went well" and won back alienated alums.

1. Alienating everyone then winning them back is not a great baseline strategy.

2. No disrespect to Fisch, but he hasn't played a single game. Again, no disrespect, but if we suck next year, no one's gonna care if Gronk and Bruschi coached the spring game. It's a little early to be calling that a success, let alone justification for Robbins having a blank check.

Edit: I mean, doctors really helped John Wayne Bobbitt bounce back, but that doesn't mean someone else's plan A should be to chop off their genitals.

Not the analogy I was expecting -- but very effective making your point.

Anybody know the players’ thoughts? Would there be a mass exodus if Miller is fired?

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 12:25 pm

Chicat wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 12:15 pm If you followed the football coaching hire fiasco this news should be in no way a surprise.

The frustrating part is seeing Robbins justify his meddling because the Fisch hire "went well" and won back alienated alums.

1. Alienating everyone then winning them back is not a great baseline strategy.

2. No disrespect to Fisch, but he hasn't played a single game. Again, no disrespect, but if we suck next year, no one's gonna care if Gronk and Bruschi coached the spring game. It's a little early to be calling that a success, let alone justification for Robbins having a blank check.

Edit: I mean, doctors really helped John Wayne Bobbitt bounce back, but that doesn't mean someone else's plan A should be to chop off their genitals.

What if you use a blender?

Fisch had an extremely low bar to clear, and he cleared it. But if he goes 2-10 next year and most games are over by the end of the first quarter, like they were during the Mackovic years, anything Fisch has in the bank will be quickly depleted.

As for Miller, it's time to piss or get off the pot. Otherwise, we're left where we are, pissing in the wind, and getting everyone soaked in piss. This is what happens when there is no real leadership. Robbins has to go. He's the worst kind of boss. The micromanager who always believes he's the smartest person in the room. And Robbins has found the perfect lackey in Heeke, who all he seems to do is smile, nod, and go along with everything Robbins wants to do. It's a bad situation, and likely going to get worse before it ever gets better.

AzCatFan2 wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:23 pm Fisch had an extremely low bar to clear, and he cleared it. But if he goes 2-10 next year and most games are over by the end of the first quarter, like they were during the Mackovic years, anything Fisch has in the bank will be quickly depleted.

As for Miller, it's time to piss or get off the pot. Otherwise, we're left where we are, pissing in the wind, and getting everyone soaked in piss. This is what happens when there is no real leadership. Robbins has to go. He's the worst kind of boss. The micromanager who always believes he's the smartest person in the room. And Robbins has found the perfect lackey in Heeke, who all he seems to do is smile, nod, and go along with everything Robbins wants to do. It's a bad situation, and likely going to get worse before it ever gets better.

I think Miller understands he needs a really good season in 2021-22. Finishing in the top 2 in the Pac, getting to the conference tourney semifinals and into the NCAA tournament will justify the extension. What happens in the crap shoot that is the NCAA Tournament is the Wild Card in the equation. A Sweet 16 will be judged favorably -- especially after the 3-year tourney absence. An early exit in the tourney will bring out the fans with 20/20 hindsight.

The conference is there for the taking next season. Except for UCLA, the top teams ahead of Arizona this season had senior-heavy rosters responsible for most of their success.

UCLA will be good again (but not great). They return a solid core.
Oregon loses Duarte/Figueroa/Omoruyi
USC loses Mobley/Eaddy/Wright
Colorado loses Wright/Horne/Schwartz
ASU could be really bad -- losing Martin, Lawrence, Verge and likely their top freshmen in Christopher.
Utah will be better and experienced
Washington State was very young this season and acquitted itself rather well.
Stanford will be so-so, losing De Silva, their best player
Oregon State will be so-so -- losing Thompson who is their best defender by far
UW & Cal have a long way to go.

The 3-year tournament absence needs to come with an asterisk. We were a 5/6 seed after winning our first round PAC-12 Tournament game last year. We could have made a run and won in Vegas, and might have even gotten a 4-seed. Either way, we were a lock.

Had we been eligible this year, we would have been bubble in starting the PAC-12 Tournament. The 5-seed again, and had we won our first-round game, would have set us up with UCLA, who was one of the last 4 at-large teams this year. Oregon State would have been the 6-seed in the tournament, and would have had a different run to win it all. Had the Beavers done it, Arizona vs. UCLA in Vegas would have likely been a de facto play-in game. If any of the top 5 teams, Oregon, USC, Colorado, UCLA, or Arizona won in Vegas, the loser of the AZ/UCLA game would be in the play-in game, and the winner safely in. Remember, before the conference tournament, our NET rating was very close to UCLA and Colorado.

And assuming Miller comes back, and nobody transfers, we have a heck of a 9-man rotation, and possibly 10 if T. Brown comes back for another year. Even without Terrell, whom I'd welcome back in a heartbeat, we have Akinjo, Baker, Keriisa, Mathurin, Terry, Batcho, J. Brown, Tubelis, and Koloko. All but Batcho has significant playing experience, and all have practiced together as Batcho was cleared for practice the last few weeks of the season, but no reason to burn his redshirt this year. The fact is, regardless of who anyone else is returning, we're going to be a pre-season top 25 team and a top pick for the PAC, again, if the team stays together.

AzCatFan2 wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:18 pm The 3-year tournament absence needs to come with an asterisk.

In a massive way. We were functionally incapable of making the tourney the last two years, but likely would have both years.

That leaves one year, 18-19, where we got crushed by the fallout from the FBI and ESPN article. Going into the year we lost our entire starting lineup and literally all of our incoming recruiting class decomitted.

I really fail to see how going 0-3 under those circumstances isn't just what you'd expect to happen.

But this year and two years ago still fall on Miller, because he is in charge.


Was it Phelps or Pasternack that met with Dawkins et al?
I think Pasternack. It’s too bad he didn’t come forward at that point and let CSM and the AD know what Book was getting involved in.

Postmaster wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:54 pm But this year and two years ago still fall won Miller, because he is in charge.

Was it Phelps or Pasternack that met with Dawkins et al?
I think Pasternack. It’s too bad he didn’t come forward at that point and let CSM and the AD know what Book was getting involved in.

Pasternack and Book met with Dawkins.

Pasternack didn't come forward, IMO, because none of what happened is particularly unusual in the recruiting game. It's just no one expected the FBI to be listening.

I don't think this year falls on Miller, at least as you put it out there. This year is a self-sanction. Miller is as responsible for this year as you think he is for NCAA issues. I.e., if Robbins thought he was responsible for NCAA issues, he should never have been around this long.

18-19...well, show me a coach that would have won more in that scenario. I'd wager very few would. I don't really hold Miller responsible for those roster issues. Should he have not recruited Ayton, Trier or Alkins? PJC and Dusan were seniors. The ESPN story killed any recruiting momentum we had in struggling to rebound from the FBI indictments.

I can't believe this remains unresolved.

AzCatFan2 wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:18 pm The 3-year tournament absence needs to come with an asterisk. We were a 5/6 seed after winning our first round PAC-12 Tournament game last year. We could have made a run and won in Vegas, and might have even gotten a 4-seed. Either way, we were a lock.

Had we been eligible this year, we would have been bubble in starting the PAC-12 Tournament. The 5-seed again, and had we won our first-round game, would have set us up with UCLA, who was one of the last 4 at-large teams this year. Oregon State would have been the 6-seed in the tournament, and would have had a different run to win it all. Had the Beavers done it, Arizona vs. UCLA in Vegas would have likely been a de facto play-in game. If any of the top 5 teams, Oregon, USC, Colorado, UCLA, or Arizona won in Vegas, the loser of the AZ/UCLA game would be in the play-in game, and the winner safely in. Remember, before the conference tournament, our NET rating was very close to UCLA and Colorado.

And assuming Miller comes back, and nobody transfers, we have a heck of a 9-man rotation, and possibly 10 if T. Brown comes back for another year. Even without Terrell, whom I'd welcome back in a heartbeat, we have Akinjo, Baker, Keriisa, Mathurin, Terry, Batcho, J. Brown, Tubelis, and Koloko. All but Batcho has significant playing experience, and all have practiced together as Batcho was cleared for practice the last few weeks of the season, but no reason to burn his redshirt this year. The fact is, regardless of who anyone else is returning, we're going to be a pre-season top 25 team and a top pick for the PAC, again, if the team stays together.

5/6???? Maybe with Rose Colored Glasses.

Lunardi had us as a 7.

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-f ... e-lunardi/


The bracket matrix had us as the lowest ranked 7

http://bracketmatrix.com/matrix_2020.html

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 5:01 pm

Postmaster wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:54 pm But this year and two years ago still fall won Miller, because he is in charge.

Was it Phelps or Pasternack that met with Dawkins et al?
I think Pasternack. It’s too bad he didn’t come forward at that point and let CSM and the AD know what Book was getting involved in.

Pasternack and Book met with Dawkins.

Pasternack didn't come forward, IMO, because none of what happened is particularly unusual in the recruiting game. It's just no one expected the FBI to be listening.

I don't think this year falls on Miller, at least as you put it out there. This year is a self-sanction. Miller is as responsible for this year as you think he is for NCAA issues. I.e., if Robbins thought he was responsible for NCAA issues, he should never have been around this long.

18-19...well, show me a coach that would have won more in that scenario. I'd wager very few would. I don't really hold Miller responsible for those roster issues. Should he have not recruited Ayton, Trier or Alkins? PJC and Dusan were seniors. The ESPN story killed any recruiting momentum we had in struggling to rebound from the FBI indictments.

He should have recruited Ayton. He also should have figured out how to get him the ball more.
Setting the screen at the 3-point line is probably not the best use of Ayton.
I digress.
I think Miller should stay. At least through the end of the NCAA issues.

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:24 pm

AzCatFan2 wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:18 pm The 3-year tournament absence needs to come with an asterisk.

In a massive way. We were functionally incapable of making the tourney the last two years, but likely would have both years.

That leaves one year, 18-19, where we got crushed by the fallout from the FBI and ESPN article. Going into the year we lost our entire starting lineup and literally all of our incoming recruiting class decomitted.

I really fail to see how going 0-3 under those circumstances isn't just what you'd expect to happen.

For perspective Duke and Kentucky have missed two years in a row and one was performance related the same as Arizona has had. Not certain we would have made it this year but if they were talking about Duke as getting in then we would have made it. The ACC was won by Pastner for god sake.

5, 6, 7? Does it matter that much. Point is, we were a lock last year. We had already won our first round PAC-12 Tournament game, and our NET couldn't move down too much, but could potentially move up the more we advanced in Vegas.

As for this year, I content, bubble in before the Conference tournament started. Somewhere around a 10 seed. Three ways we could have missed out had we been eligible. One, lose our first-round PAC-12 Conference Tournament game. Two, win round one, lose to UCLA, and have a bid-stealer like Oregon State win the PAC-12 Tournament auto bid. Three, have more bid stealers like Georgetown win. Impossible to say what Vegas would have looked like had we been the 5 seed and pushed Oregon State down to the 6. As it went, Oregon State only had to win 3 games as they had a bye as a 5-seed with us out of the tournament. Do they win 4 in 4 days if they had to go that route?

As for Miller, the longer we go without resolution, the worse it gets. Either can him or extend him 3 years with a low buyout in case the penalties are harsh.

Postmaster wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 10:15 pm

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 5:01 pm

Postmaster wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:54 pm But this year and two years ago still fall won Miller, because he is in charge.

Was it Phelps or Pasternack that met with Dawkins et al?
I think Pasternack. It’s too bad he didn’t come forward at that point and let CSM and the AD know what Book was getting involved in.

Pasternack and Book met with Dawkins.

Pasternack didn't come forward, IMO, because none of what happened is particularly unusual in the recruiting game. It's just no one expected the FBI to be listening.

I don't think this year falls on Miller, at least as you put it out there. This year is a self-sanction. Miller is as responsible for this year as you think he is for NCAA issues. I.e., if Robbins thought he was responsible for NCAA issues, he should never have been around this long.

18-19...well, show me a coach that would have won more in that scenario. I'd wager very few would. I don't really hold Miller responsible for those roster issues. Should he have not recruited Ayton, Trier or Alkins? PJC and Dusan were seniors. The ESPN story killed any recruiting momentum we had in struggling to rebound from the FBI indictments.

He should have recruited Ayton. He also should have figured out how to get him the ball more.
Setting the screen at the 3-point line is probably not the best use of Ayton.
I digress.
I think Miller should stay. At least through the end of the NCAA issues.

Lack of a good point guard was the Achilles' heel of the '18 team. PJC was incapable of creating and finishing and was inferior to every other point guard in the Pac -- he belonged in the Big Sky or similar conference. Also lack of other perimeter shooters didn't help.

I agree that PJC had limitations.
But I still expect Miller to figured something out.
You can’t have the best player in the country and get bounced in first round.

Postmaster wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:34 am I agree that PJC had limitations.
But I still expect Miller to figured something out.
You can’t have the best player in the country and get bounced in first round.

You mean like Anthony Edwards, whose Georgia team didnt make the tournament? Or like Ben Simmons and his LSU team? Or Markelle Fultz and his Washington team? Many teams have the "best player" as a freshman with little help around them and have bad seasons. Even Kevin Durant who may be the best college basketball player I have ever seen got blown out in the second round.

Postmaster wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:34 am I agree that PJC had limitations.
But I still expect Miller to figured something out.
You can’t have the best player in the country and get bounced in first round.

PJC was miscast here. He would have been a great experienced rotation guy, but he was never the team leader.

I don't think that was the biggest issue in 17-18, though. We were great on offense and lagged heavily on D. That was a function of having Ristic and Ayton together. They were both targets for mobile teams.

We were #83 in Kenpom adjD. That was always the part that really kept us from being what the talent level suggested we could be and it was largely a function of having to play Dusan and Ayton together.

If Comanche returned or Smith or Randolph were more ready, things might have been different, but we wound up very vulnerable to a small team that could spread and penetrate like Buffalo.

AzCatFan2 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:08 am 5, 6, 7? Does it matter that much. Point is, we were a lock last year. We had already won our first round PAC-12 Tournament game, and our NET couldn't move down too much, but could potentially move up the more we advanced in Vegas.

As for this year, I content, bubble in before the Conference tournament started. Somewhere around a 10 seed. Three ways we could have missed out had we been eligible. One, lose our first-round PAC-12 Conference Tournament game. Two, win round one, lose to UCLA, and have a bid-stealer like Oregon State win the PAC-12 Tournament auto bid. Three, have more bid stealers like Georgetown win. Impossible to say what Vegas would have looked like had we been the 5 seed and pushed Oregon State down to the 6. As it went, Oregon State only had to win 3 games as they had a bye as a 5-seed with us out of the tournament. Do they win 4 in 4 days if they had to go that route?

As for Miller, the longer we go without resolution, the worse it gets. Either can him or extend him 3 years with a low buyout in case the penalties are harsh.

10 seed?? I doubt it.

UCLA ended up an 11 seed in a play in game......and they swept us twice.

At best we would have been last in (or next to last in). Missing the tourney entirely would have been a very real possibility.

dmjcat wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 11:04 am

AzCatFan2 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:08 am 5, 6, 7? Does it matter that much. Point is, we were a lock last year. We had already won our first round PAC-12 Tournament game, and our NET couldn't move down too much, but could potentially move up the more we advanced in Vegas.

As for this year, I content, bubble in before the Conference tournament started. Somewhere around a 10 seed. Three ways we could have missed out had we been eligible. One, lose our first-round PAC-12 Conference Tournament game. Two, win round one, lose to UCLA, and have a bid-stealer like Oregon State win the PAC-12 Tournament auto bid. Three, have more bid stealers like Georgetown win. Impossible to say what Vegas would have looked like had we been the 5 seed and pushed Oregon State down to the 6. As it went, Oregon State only had to win 3 games as they had a bye as a 5-seed with us out of the tournament. Do they win 4 in 4 days if they had to go that route?

As for Miller, the longer we go without resolution, the worse it gets. Either can him or extend him 3 years with a low buyout in case the penalties are harsh.

10 seed?? I doubt it.

UCLA ended up an 11 seed in a play in game......and they swept us twice.

At best we would have been last in (or next to last in). Missing the tourney entirely would have been a very real possibility.

With this logic, Indiana should have been a 1 seed because they swept Iowa....you’re a pessimistic troll.

I mean, remember the year ASU swept us and we made it in as a 12 seed and they didn't?

They were so mad, it was so funny and somehow we made the Sweet 16. Head to head is something but not everything.

UCLA beat Colorado once, but beyond that, we might have been their best win. They went 1-1 with Rado, 0-2 vs SC and 0-1 vs Oregon. Their OOC was pretty meh.

We also split with Colorado and split with SC. Our OOC was nothing special either, but the SC gave us a win they didn't have.

I really think the solution is simple... you make Miller deal with the repercussions of the NCAA... not some innocent coach. Give Miller a short extension to see what the NCAA does... if they drop the hammer, make Miller answer for it and then decide what to do

Alieberman wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 11:48 am I really think the solution is simple... you make Miller deal with the repercussions of the NCAA... not some innocent coach. Give Miller a short extension to see what the NCAA does... if they drop the hammer, make Miller answer for it and then decide what to do

I'd put it slightly differently with the same result.

If we hire a new coach, we should do it at a point we can put our strongest pitch together. That necessarily means putting the IARP in the rear view mirror.

That also necessarily means giving Miller some time. If we show improvement, we can keep him or negotiate a divorce when both sides have better options. If he does poorly, then he gets fired and we hire from a position of strength.

It all leads to the same idea. Give him a 3 year extension so he can bring talent in. Minimal buyout so he proves it or we're not heavily tied.

It seems like a no brainer to me.

Alieberman wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 11:48 am I really think the solution is simple... you make Miller deal with the repercussions of the NCAA... not some innocent coach. Give Miller a short extension to see what the NCAA does... if they drop the hammer, make Miller answer for it and then decide what to do

The penalty of the IARP should be irrelevant to the decision on whether to proceed with Miller. There is no new information. The UA investigated. The FBI investigated. The NCAA investigated. Robbins knows everything he is going to know. If he's waiting on a penalty, then the decision really isn't about the evidence but instead about how the evidence is perceived. The NOA doesn't list Miller as committing any infractions. In fact, NOA makes Robbins just as responsible by his handling of the situation -- so it's not fair to punish an employee for a violation committed by the person in charge and also responsible.

It's perfectly reasonable to extend Miller with some language that gives Arizona an out should new evidence come to light. The school should give Miller every tool available for him to be successful for the program. An extension does that. No extension hamstrings Miller and the program. Do it the right way. If you're still not happy with Miller after next season -- then you pay the buyout and move on. It's a small price to pay to risk damaging the program further for several years. The cost of the extension should no-way be a part of the decision process.

The NCAA selection committee uses NET rankings as a guide for the tournament. End of the regular season, our NET was 46, very close to UCLA and Colorado. UCLA lost in the conference quarters and ended up the last four in. Colorado beat SC and made the conference finals, and is a 5-seed. Had we been eligible and lost our first round game, that likely puts us bubble out. Same had we lost the QF match-up and a bid-stealer like Oregon State goes on to win the PAC-12 tournament. Head-to-head is only meaningful to the NCAA if it comes down to deciding between just two teams. Otherwise, too many other data points to consider, and our road win at SC was better than anything UCLA did.

As for 2018, have to remember, we also ran into a Buffalo buzzsaw of ridiculous 3-point shooting. I think at one point, they were 15 for 25 from 3, but missed their last 2 or 3, but still shot over 50%. I remember thinking they were going to get blown out in the next round because law of averages says no team can shoot that hot over a period, and will eventually regress to the mean. And that's exactly what happened. If Buffalo shoots like 11 for 27 from 3, it's a much closer game, and one we would have had a chance to win. But that didn't happen, and often what makes the tournament so interesting. If UVA and UMBC play 10 times, how many does UMBC win? Maybe 1? Doesn't matter, because when they did play, UMBC did win.

As for Miller, he built the current team which I think has a ton of potential. It would be shame if he didn't get the chance to coach them. Of course, if the NCAA hammer truly hits us, then so be it, and Miller has to go. But still don't think that will happen based on the NOA.

IndianaZonaFan wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 11:24 am

dmjcat wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 11:04 am

AzCatFan2 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:08 am 5, 6, 7? Does it matter that much. Point is, we were a lock last year. We had already won our first round PAC-12 Tournament game, and our NET couldn't move down too much, but could potentially move up the more we advanced in Vegas.

As for this year, I content, bubble in before the Conference tournament started. Somewhere around a 10 seed. Three ways we could have missed out had we been eligible. One, lose our first-round PAC-12 Conference Tournament game. Two, win round one, lose to UCLA, and have a bid-stealer like Oregon State win the PAC-12 Tournament auto bid. Three, have more bid stealers like Georgetown win. Impossible to say what Vegas would have looked like had we been the 5 seed and pushed Oregon State down to the 6. As it went, Oregon State only had to win 3 games as they had a bye as a 5-seed with us out of the tournament. Do they win 4 in 4 days if they had to go that route?

As for Miller, the longer we go without resolution, the worse it gets. Either can him or extend him 3 years with a low buyout in case the penalties are harsh.

10 seed?? I doubt it.

UCLA ended up an 11 seed in a play in game......and they swept us twice.

At best we would have been last in (or next to last in). Missing the tourney entirely would have been a very real possibility.

With this logic, Indiana should have been a 1 seed because they swept Iowa....you’re a pessimistic troll.

Troll??? Nope, Realist.

I'm not a Fanboy with rose colored glasses.

dmjcat wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 1:32 pm

IndianaZonaFan wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 11:24 am

dmjcat wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 11:04 am

AzCatFan2 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:08 am 5, 6, 7? Does it matter that much. Point is, we were a lock last year. We had already won our first round PAC-12 Tournament game, and our NET couldn't move down too much, but could potentially move up the more we advanced in Vegas.

As for this year, I content, bubble in before the Conference tournament started. Somewhere around a 10 seed. Three ways we could have missed out had we been eligible. One, lose our first-round PAC-12 Conference Tournament game. Two, win round one, lose to UCLA, and have a bid-stealer like Oregon State win the PAC-12 Tournament auto bid. Three, have more bid stealers like Georgetown win. Impossible to say what Vegas would have looked like had we been the 5 seed and pushed Oregon State down to the 6. As it went, Oregon State only had to win 3 games as they had a bye as a 5-seed with us out of the tournament. Do they win 4 in 4 days if they had to go that route?

As for Miller, the longer we go without resolution, the worse it gets. Either can him or extend him 3 years with a low buyout in case the penalties are harsh.

10 seed?? I doubt it.

UCLA ended up an 11 seed in a play in game......and they swept us twice.

At best we would have been last in (or next to last in). Missing the tourney entirely would have been a very real possibility.

With this logic, Indiana should have been a 1 seed because they swept Iowa....you’re a pessimistic troll.

Troll??? Nope, Realist.

I'm not a Fanboy with rose colored glasses.

Arizona had a final NET rating of 44. UCLA, 46. Had Arizona been a part of the PAC-12 tournament, and because of this, Oregon St. doesn't win in Vegas, and instead, say Oregon or USC wins it, both Arizona and UCLA would have likely received big dance bids. If Oregon St. stole a bid, then it's likely the First Four spot would have come down to AZ and UCLA, and then the head-to-head match-up would have come into play. At this point, had UCLA beaten us for a third time, the last spot would have been theirs.

This isn't looking at Arizona through rose colored glasses. It's looking at who the last four in teams are, their NET rating, conference NET rating, and where Arizona fit, which is right in line with UCLA. Two spots better, if you want to get technical. And while it's all hypothetical, had we been eligible, we would have been a true bubble team entering Conference Tournament play. Lose game one, and likely out. Win two games, then relatively safe. Win one and lose one, and we'd be last four in, and hoping auto bids didn't go to too many bid stealers like Oregon State and Georgetown.

IndianaZonaFan wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:17 pm Anybody know the players’ thoughts? Would there be a mass exodus if Miller is fired?

Ask Penn State who just replaced their coach and announced a new one. Yesterday Penn State hired Micah Shrewsberry from Purdue as their new coach. Today 5 players announced they are transferring, 4 of them starters. A sixth just entered the portal so SIX players are transferring.

gronk4heisman wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:47 am

Postmaster wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:34 am I agree that PJC had limitations.
But I still expect Miller to figured something out.
You can’t have the best player in the country and get bounced in first round.

You mean like Anthony Edwards, whose Georgia team didnt make the tournament? Or like Ben Simmons and his LSU team? Or Markelle Fultz and his Washington team? Many teams have the "best player" as a freshman with little help around them and have bad seasons. Even Kevin Durant who may be the best college basketball player I have ever seen got blown out in the second round.

I expect more from AZ and Miller.
Edwards had the tourney cancelled I believe.
LSU and WA both moved on from their coaches shortly after those disappointing seasons with freshman stars.

I think Miller needs to be extended because of NCAA stuff. I hope his new recruiting philosophy works.
But now it seems he is offering a lot of transfers. I don’t know if he expects guys to leave or if he is grasping for talent.

Pitino said he is staying at Iona until he retires.

I think if we fire Miller now, we would have to hire someone for a couple years to ride out the mess. Then we’d have to start the hiring process all over.
Who knows how that turns out.

I think it is pretty clear Miller sees the one thing the team severely lacks after watching this entire year. An athletic long wing who can cause havoc on the perimeter. I think that is evident by the people he is going after, and he is using the transfer market because those are the best available instant impact players at this stage.

Postmaster wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 4:36 pm I expect more from AZ and Miller.
Edwards had the tourney cancelled I believe.
LSU and WA both moved on from their coaches shortly after those disappointing seasons with freshman stars.

Edwards's Georgia team was 16-16 and 5-13 in SEC play before the tourney was Covid cancelled. Absent a miracle, they weren't making it.

I mean, 3 of the last 6 years, the team with the #1 HS player and #1 NBA daft pick missed the tourney. You expect more from Miller, but he gave us more.

Any rumblings on what is going on?

Rumblings? Yes. A loyal fan base that has followed the program religiously, some for 45 years, is getting hacked off because a heart surgeon with a God complex is convinced he can be an athletic director.

It’s about time that every donor with two nickels to rub together need to start making this about removing a school president and not a basketball coach.