Bear Down Wildcats

GOD DAMN IT ROBBINS! MAKE A FUCKING DECISION ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!

AzCatFan2 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 2:13 pm

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.

Had AZ played in the PAC12 tourney we would have been the 5 seed. I think we would have won against Cal...........and then AZ would have played the 4 seed UCLA (in which Cronin would have played Miller like a fiddle again for a 3rd time this year). As a result there is NO WAY IN HELL that we wind up with a higher seed than UCLA and ended up with a 10 seed, regardless of NET rankings. We would have, at best, wound up with the last seed (or one better) in (11 seed).

I wonder what Cole Davis is saying and thinking right now. If Robbins runs him off, this could turn into a total disaster

dmjcat wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 8:21 pmHad AZ played in the PAC12 tourney we would have been the 5 seed. I think we would have won against Cal...........and then AZ would have played the 4 seed UCLA (in which Cronin would have played Miller like a fiddle again for a 3rd time this year). As a result there is NO WAY IN HELL that we wind up with a higher seed than UCLA and ended up with a 10 seed, regardless of NET rankings. We would have, at best, wound up with the last seed (or one better) in (11 seed).

Hmmmm... I wonder if having a postseason to play for might have changed a loss or two into wins and changed our position in the conference standings and how we would have been perceived by the selection committee.

Since you know EXACTLY how our Pac-12 tourney would have gone, I’m hoping you can answer my query.

84Cat wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:07 pm I wonder what Cole Davis is saying and thinking right now. If Robbins runs him off, this could turn into a total disaster

From what I’ve heard it’s not just Davis. There would be more than him run off.

wyo-cat wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 11:11 pm

84Cat wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:07 pm I wonder what Cole Davis is saying and thinking right now. If Robbins runs him off, this could turn into a total disaster

From what I’ve heard it’s not just Davis. There would be more than him run off.

Yes. It would be me, too. I would renounce this university if Robbins runs off Miller. Seriously. I would keep a few of the people who I'm friends with from here as contacts and cut all other ties.

The Fisch hire stank enough, if you'll pardon the expression.

I can't tell you what low confidence and respect I have in my alma mater's leadership right now. Longhorned warned us about this @$$-covering micromanager with a God complex.

Now he's getting even more involved in personnel matters that are, frankly, none of his business, not just his expertise.

Haven't we just been through this movie for the past four years? If this guy is allowed to run amok, there really are no checks and balances and no control over the public face of this university.

Miller's suffered enough in the court of public opinion without his school's president finishing the job. He's, frankly, far too competent and sane for far too much of the AD.

If Miller is fired - and I don’t expect him to be - is there any ensuing hire that would somehow make things right?

The Fisch hire gives me little hope that we’d stick with candidates with AZ ties, not that there’s even an AZ guy who’d make sense right now.

I keep coming back to this being a choice between giving Miller three more years to build momentum, which looks very possible with this roster, or rolling the dice on an uncertain future. The latter option feels reckless and could very likely see the program fall off in a way we haven’t seen before.

zonagrad wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 8:13 pm 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.

That is encouraging. Thanks. Someone should send him the Richard Jefferson tweet on why he is a Miller guy. Yes Doc the one the building is named for.

dmjcat wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 8:21 pm

AzCatFan2 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 2:13 pm

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

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.

Had AZ played in the PAC12 tourney we would have been the 5 seed. I think we would have won against Cal...........and then AZ would have played the 4 seed UCLA (in which Cronin would have played Miller like a fiddle again for a 3rd time this year). As a result there is NO WAY IN HELL that we wind up with a higher seed than UCLA and ended up with a 10 seed, regardless of NET rankings. We would have, at best, wound up with the last seed (or one better) in (11 seed).

With our resume, we entered Conference tournament season as a 10 seed. A very precarious position, as it's square bubble territory. Had we lost to CAL, that would have likely pushed our NET rankings below 50, and put us bubble out. Beat CAL, and we don't gain much, but don't lose much either. The match-up between Arizona and UCLA in Vegas would have been a QUAD 1 game, as it was neutral court, with both teams with a NET ranking better than 50. The winner of this game would have been a lock, with the loser back on the bubble, hoping a team like Oregon State didn't win in Vegas and steal a bid. Just speculation, but had we been eligible, same resume, lose to CAL, we're NIT bound. Beat CAL and UCLA, we'd be a lock. Go 1-1 in Vegas, and if one of the top 4 teams won the PAC-12 Tournament, we'd be playing in the First Four. Had Oregon State or another bid stealer took a bid, we'd be out. Again, this is based on the fact our NET ranking is actually 2 better than UCLA, though going into the PAC-12, UCLA likely had a slightly higher NET, but their loss to Oregon State hurt.

And it's an impressive coaching job by Miller, to lose all 5 starters off a tournament lock team, and then lose the player with the most experience, in Baker, half way through the season. Keriisa was also ineligible most of the year, and Batcho didn't play a minute. Then we had games canceled, rescheduled, etc., and still, we were a bubble team. Considering who we have returning, assuming they all come back including Miller, we will have a lot of talent with a lot of good experience. We might even be Arizona good next year.

in the fantasy game of trying to figure out where we would be seeded if we made the tournament this year, I think it is important to consider motivation. The team had the tournament taken from them mid season. To think that didn't impact the outcome of a couple of close games is to not really understand the mind of a college basketball player at a program that makes the tournament the reason for the process. I am of the mind that we would have a better record if the team was playing for the tournament. There was a period of a week or so after the ban that the team looked to be fired up to show people differently, but that wanes.

There was no moment where they obviously let down, but the motivation to fight through the slog during that mid-conference slump, most notably in the Rockies, is naturally less when there is no larger goal. Competitors compete. But they are also playing against competitors, ones with March goals.

There was also no motivation as far as jockeying for position in the PAC tourney. There were literally no “must-win” games this year so there wasn’t that extra push that other squads no doubt felt playing against the Cats.

EVCat wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:01 am in the fantasy game of trying to figure out where we would be seeded if we made the tournament this year, I think it is important to consider motivation. The team had the tournament taken from them mid season. To think that didn't impact the outcome of a couple of close games is to not really understand the mind of a college basketball player at a program that makes the tournament the reason for the process. I am of the mind that we would have a better record if the team was playing for the tournament. There was a period of a week or so after the ban that the team looked to be fired up to show people differently, but that wanes.

There was no moment where they obviously let down, but the motivation to fight through the slog during that mid-conference slump, most notably in the Rockies, is naturally less when there is no larger goal. Competitors compete. But they are also playing against competitors, ones with March goals.

I agree with this. We kept playing hard, but the motivation has to be different.

I'd add that the usual fractured wrist timeline is 6-8 weeks, and there's a good chance Baker would have returned if the tournament was on the table. He broke it on January 9, so there's an off chance he could have made the LA swing and probably would have been back for Oregon on the road and the Pac tourney.

That’s another reason Robbins is a POS. He did the self ban in an attempt to yank the season and further out a poor light on Miller. I really believe that

azcat49 wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:24 am That’s another reason Robbins is a POS. He did the self ban in an attempt to yank the season and further out a poor light on Miller. I really believe that

I've grown to really dislike Robbins, but the self-ban was reasonable. I think we're going to base our IARP case off this ban being enough.

It's very unusual for more than a 1 year ban. I think it's smart to ride that notion.

University presidents have one job now, and it's not to micromanage the institution.

Their job is at least 40% fundraising. Do the meet and greets, and calling up and placating donors.

The provost is to handle day to day operations, also deans for their individual schools, same with the bursar, CIO and so on.

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:31 am

azcat49 wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:24 am That’s another reason Robbins is a POS. He did the self ban in an attempt to yank the season and further out a poor light on Miller. I really believe that

I've grown to really dislike Robbins, but the self-ban was reasonable. I think we're going to base our IARP case off this ban being enough.

It's very unusual for more than a 1 year ban. I think it's smart to ride that notion.

The self-ban is only reasonable if the NOA was also released. We know now that Robbins was happy to implement the ban but withheld the NOA for no other reason than to protect himself. The fact that he was implicated in the NOA by the NCAA for his actions, not Miller's, speaks volumes. If anything, the NOA provided a bit of vindication for Miller regarding all the media reports alleging payment of players. Not of that was even remotely addressed in the NOA. Immediately releasing the NOA to the media would've done a great deal to repair the damaged reputation of Sean Miller and made sense if you truly had the intent to protect the program and your head coach. But Robbins suppressed the NOA because his own ass was named by the NCAA -- which is comical. In my opinion, the ABOR has as much right to question Robbins' actions and ethics as much as anyone named in the NOA -- perhaps more so.

Robbins is not infallible. His job should be on the line more than anyone still employed at the university. Anyone with any objectivity on the subject can plainly see the best course of action regarding Miller has been:
1. To fire him when the allegations became serious (that was three years ago).
2. Extend him immediately to protect the integrity of the program, which is clearly on much stable ground after several years of uncertainty.

It must frustrate Robbins to no end that this year's team performed so well under tough circumstances. Had Arizona struggled to put a winning product on the floor or ended the season on a losing streak, Robbins could've fired Miller based on the product on the court and poor direction of the program. Miller and the team screwed up those plans by putting together a solid season considering every significant player was suiting up for the first time at the UA. Robbins' last hope is to make recruiting (high school & transfers) as difficult as possible by not extending Miller. He is directly responsible for everything bad with the program going forward -- not Miller, who's hands are somewhat tied.

zonagrad wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:56 am The self-ban is only reasonable if the NOA was also released.

I'd respectfully disagree here. We self-sanctioned immediately on receipt of the NOA. That is clearly a result of our legal team assessing the allegations and believing a 1 year ban is a reasonable level of sanctions likely to be accepted by the IARP.

I think that's essentially it beginning to end. The self-sanction isn't more or less appropriate based on whether the NOA is or isn't released. We'll know if it was appropiate based on whether the IARP accepts it. That's the only important thing.

I do think it looks like a strategic error to withhold it in hindsight, and I'm no big fan of Robbins. I just don't think the ban influences the release or vice versa.

I've always thought in large organizations and large groups, those should stick to what they specialize in. I hate the cowgirls but they'd be a lot better if Jerry Jones took his nose out of the football operations and let the football guys focus on that. You're good at business Jerry, you're not a renowned football mind. Rob Robbins in no way specializes in athletics. Proof is all his decisions around the athletic department have sucked. He's not even a good at the tasks normal university presidents perform. I remember the border patrol incident a couple years back, he completely botched it. His response was to invite them back and any student could ask them any questions they'd like. Let's just say there wasn't a lot of intelligent conversation. Robbins is in over his head and he doesn't even know it. Whenever his contract is up, I hope it doesn't get extended. He sucks

gronk4heisman wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 pm 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.

Looks like the staffs eyes are locked on Tari Eason who would fit the need there superbly.

TheCat wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 2:44 pm

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.

That's a great example - the majority of those players were pissed Patrick Chambers was fired in the first place because it happened a few weeks before the season started with little explanation from the athletic department.

AzCatFan2 wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:28 am

dmjcat wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 8:21 pm

AzCatFan2 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 2:13 pm

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

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

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.

Had AZ played in the PAC12 tourney we would have been the 5 seed. I think we would have won against Cal...........and then AZ would have played the 4 seed UCLA (in which Cronin would have played Miller like a fiddle again for a 3rd time this year). As a result there is NO WAY IN HELL that we wind up with a higher seed than UCLA and ended up with a 10 seed, regardless of NET rankings. We would have, at best, wound up with the last seed (or one better) in (11 seed).

With our resume, we entered Conference tournament season as a 10 seed. A very precarious position, as it's square bubble territory. Had we lost to CAL, that would have likely pushed our NET rankings below 50, and put us bubble out. Beat CAL, and we don't gain much, but don't lose much either. The match-up between Arizona and UCLA in Vegas would have been a QUAD 1 game, as it was neutral court, with both teams with a NET ranking better than 50. The winner of this game would have been a lock, with the loser back on the bubble, hoping a team like Oregon State didn't win in Vegas and steal a bid. Just speculation, but had we been eligible, same resume, lose to CAL, we're NIT bound. Beat CAL and UCLA, we'd be a lock. Go 1-1 in Vegas, and if one of the top 4 teams won the PAC-12 Tournament, we'd be playing in the First Four. Had Oregon State or another bid stealer took a bid, we'd be out. Again, this is based on the fact our NET ranking is actually 2 better than UCLA, though going into the PAC-12, UCLA likely had a slightly higher NET, but their loss to Oregon State hurt.

And it's an impressive coaching job by Miller, to lose all 5 starters off a tournament lock team, and then lose the player with the most experience, in Baker, half way through the season. Keriisa was also ineligible most of the year, and Batcho didn't play a minute. Then we had games canceled, rescheduled, etc., and still, we were a bubble team. Considering who we have returning, assuming they all come back including Miller, we will have a lot of talent with a lot of good experience. We might even be Arizona good next year.

10 seed???? How on earth did you come to that conclusion???

UCLA ended up an 11 seed in a play-in game and they defeated us twice. Its unlikely we would have been seeded higher than UCLA.

There was actually an article on this in the Star a week ago (see link below).

https://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildca ... f4228.html

Lunardi had us as an 11, two other bracketologists had us as a 12 seed, and Jerry Palm had us as a bubble team.

dmjcat wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 12:32 pm 10 seed???? How on earth did you come to that conclusion???

UCLA ended up an 11 seed in a play-in game and they defeated us twice. Its unlikely we would have been seeded higher than UCLA.

He posted it. The NCAA uses NET primarily and we were slotted ahead of UCLA.

We were ahead of UCLA in KenPom too. All he's telling you is what the metrics the committee relies on say.

http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_ranking ... team_sheet

http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_ranking ... team_sheet

You can see for yourself why we compare favorably. Better Q1 win %, better road win %.

You come back to head to head over and over again, but that's all they had over us. Also, UCLA isn't an 11 if they don't lose to the Beavers in the first round of the Pac tourney. They were probably either a protected 11 seed or a 10 before that L.

Yep. UCLA was also a likely 10-seed entering Conference Tournament week. The loss to Oregon State knocked them down to a First Four 11-seed. And caused them to lose a few spots in the NET ranking.

And tournament projections are based on resume to date. They do not take future games into account, and strange things happening like bid stealers like Georgetown or Oregon State winning their conference tournaments. The result of these two grabbing auto-bids resulted in the highest at-large being 11-seeds. So any bracket that had us as an at-large 12-seed is bogus, because there were no at-large 12-seeds. Of course, had Arizona been eligible, and one of the top four PAC teams won the Conference Tournament, the last at-large would have likely been a 12-seed.

Anyway you cut it, we were bubble-in, and likely last four in start of the conference tournaments had we been eligible. And I stand by my statement, lose to CAL, and we'd be bubble out. Split, and we'd be sweating, hoping not too many bid stealers won conference tournaments. Win 2, and we'd be a lock.

Make me a list of the top 5 coaches in college basketball and tell me where Sean ends up on that list.

It's a nice comment.

And totally against the weight of the evidence.

Look at the graph showing Miller's accomplishments and tell me why a change is even contemplated. https://twitter.com/i/status/1370135406507917315

Our RPI/NET/ETC numbers

That's not even getting into the "He brought the cops"

How about: we're an also ran team in an also ran conference....again.

SCCats wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:01 pm Make me a list of the top 5 coaches in college basketball and tell me where Sean ends up on that list.

It's a nice comment.

And totally against the weight of the evidence.

I'll play.

Allowing for age, what 5-7 coaches are you taking over Sean Miller?

SCCats wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:13 pm Our RPI/NET/ETC numbers

That's not even getting into the "He brought the cops"

How about: we're an also ran team in an also ran conference....again.

How about he recruit 3 first round draft choices because he needed to prove that Arizona was still the place to go. He changed his recruiting completely. He had one of the top offenses in the country and compare that tempo to 3 years ago. He had a better record this year than either Duke or Kentucky with their load of 5 stars. He also replaced all the starters and about 85 % of the scoring and 70% of the rebounds.

As for bring the cops I didn't hear him on any wire taps and you would have to be an idiot if you think he sanctioned Book to make a deal that steered players to a financial advisor. Where's the benefit to him. I think you should change your handle from SCCATS to Dukey V Cat.

TheCat wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:10 pm Look at the graph showing Miller's accomplishments and tell me why a change is even contemplated. https://twitter.com/i/status/1370135406507917315

Amen. And big props to RJ for speaking about so publicly in support of our coach.

SCCats wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:01 pm Make me a list of the top 5 coaches in college basketball and tell me where Sean ends up on that list.

It's a nice comment.

And totally against the weight of the evidence.

Yeah, I'll play too.

Here are the only current college coaches I'd take right now over Miller, in no order:

Calipari, Self, Few, Wright, Bennett.

That's it. And Bennett is a stretch. I left out some big names because they're quite old and likely won't coach very much longer: K, Roy, Izzo.

Beachcat97 wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 6:47 pm

SCCats wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:01 pm Make me a list of the top 5 coaches in college basketball and tell me where Sean ends up on that list.

It's a nice comment.

And totally against the weight of the evidence.

Yeah, I'll play too.

Here are the only current college coaches I'd take right now over Miller, in no order:

Calipari, Self, Few, Wright, Bennett.

That's it. And Bennett is a stretch. I left out some big names because they're quite old and likely won't coach very much longer: K, Roy, Izzo.

Heck, Miller has more trips to the Elite Eight than Few and Bennett. Same # as Wright, although Wright obviously has the two recent NC's.

That's not odd to put Miller in that company. His resume exceeds guys like Scott Drew.

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 7:20 pm

Beachcat97 wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 6:47 pm

SCCats wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:01 pm Make me a list of the top 5 coaches in college basketball and tell me where Sean ends up on that list.

It's a nice comment.

And totally against the weight of the evidence.

Yeah, I'll play too.

Here are the only current college coaches I'd take right now over Miller, in no order:

Calipari, Self, Few, Wright, Bennett.

That's it. And Bennett is a stretch. I left out some big names because they're quite old and likely won't coach very much longer: K, Roy, Izzo.

Heck, Miller has more trips to the Elite Eight than Few and Bennett. Same # as Wright, although Wright obviously has the two recent NC's.

That's not odd to put Miller in that company. His resume exceeds guys like Scott Drew.

Bennett also has a national title, so there's that. But yeah, Miller absolutely belongs among that group. He's being judged more by the last three seasons than by the seven or eight that preceded them.

Beachcat97 wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:24 pm Bennett also has a national title, so there's that. But yeah, Miller absolutely belongs among that group. He's being judged more by the last three seasons than by the seven or eight that preceded them.

Even if you just use the last three years and look at how he's recruited and how the kids have played during this extreme time. I don't see how you can't call it a job well done.

Beachcat97 wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:24 pm Bennett also has a national title, so there's that. But yeah, Miller absolutely belongs among that group. He's being judged more by the last three seasons than by the seven or eight that preceded them.

Yeah, although Bennett was regarded as a huge choke artist before that NC. It's one of those things about CBB, how do you weight a NC vs years of getting knocked out early?

Look, on the whole, I just tend to be of the opinion it's silly to ding Miller for these last 3 years. The hit from the FBI and ESPN was something no coach would have avoided.

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:49 pm
Look, on the whole, I just tend to be of the opinion it's silly to ding Miller for these last 3 years. The hit from the FBI and ESPN was something no coach would have avoided.

Could not agree more. Really tired of defending him to my AZ alum friends. They sure liked him in 2015.

You not only have to be good -- but also very lucky to advance in the NCAA tourney. In his first four years at UVA, Bennett mustered 3 non-NCAA appearances and 1-first round exit. If Purdue doesn't miss a FT with 17 seconds remaining, Virginia doesn't even have a chance to scramble for a loose ball and hit a game tying buzzer beater to force overtime and advance to the Final Four and eventually the national title. Three years earlier Bennett and Virginia choked away a 15 point second half lead vs. Syracuse with the Final Four on the line. The following year Virginia made history as the only #1 seed to lose in the first round. So Bennett was extraordinarily lucky in his national title run and also had two horrendous NCAA tourney losses. But now that he got that very lucky bounce -- he's an NCAA darling.

Sean Miller hasn't had the good fortune of the ball bouncing his way. A Jamelle Horne open three at the buzzer vs. UCONN and Miller is a Final Four darling. Or a blocking foul on Wisconsin on a last second possession -- and Miller is a Final Four darling. That's how precarious the NCAA tournament can be.

In his first 18 years at Villanova, Jay Wright either missed the tourney OR didn't get out of the first weekend 12 times. That's 2/3 of the time either not dancing or going home pretty early. In a ten year stretch, Wright won two titles and the other eight times went home the first weekend or missed the dance entirely.

Mark Few's first 15 years at Gonzaga, 11 times the Zags didn't get past the first weekend. The other four times they maxed out in the Sweet 16. That was the high water mark until he finally broke through. Few had 5 straight 2nd round losses until in his 16th year he reached the Elite 8. Miller reached that in his second season. In fact, Miller hit the Elite 8 three times in his first five seasons at Arizona.

On the court, the last three years have been an aberration, especially 2019. There was more damage done by the ESPN report than by the FBI. It's remarkable that Miller put together tournament caliber teams the last two seasons in light of the damage done to roster stability.

The more I look at Miller's record -- the more I fear a program like Minnesota taking a flyer on him and stealing him from Arizona. Minnesota isn't likely to take that risk in light of the Clem Haskins' academic fraud from two decades ago. But the point is that Miller is still a hot commodity and would easily be the best coach on the market if Arizona decided to cut ties. And really, it's not even close.

When someone else eventually comes in and turns us into a top 15 or better program in just a few years, I wonder how some will look back at the current delusion.

Time will tell.

SCCats wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 6:14 am When someone else eventually comes in and turns us into a top 15 or better program in just a few years, I wonder how some will look back at the current delusion.

Time will tell.

Please name this international coach of mystery who will not only want to work for a milquetoast AD who has no power to protect him and a megalomaniac President who is playing out his fantasy of being a pro league GM but also will magically bring us back to prominence and to levels Sean Miller could only dream of...

Who are we hiring? Inquiring minds want to know.

This meant to be cryptic about Sean? Or just about tourney games today?

SCCats wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 6:14 am When someone else eventually comes in and turns us into a top 15 or better program in just a few years, I wonder how some will look back at the current delusion.

Time will tell.

Respectfully, I asked you to name the 5-7 coaches you'd put above Miller accounting for age. I'd genuinely be interested in your answer, much more interested than comments like the above.

SCCats wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 6:14 am When someone else eventually comes in and turns us into a top 15 or better program in just a few years, I wonder how some will look back at the current delusion.

Time will tell.

The only current delusion is of those who believe there is an accomplished coach out there ready to leave a sure thing at their current program to go work for and AD and school president who have bungled, bobbled, and fumbled their way through an ugly situation. What coach is dying to sign up for THAT?

I'll answer that question for you: it's a coach who's done marginally well at a middling mid-major program who has probably peaked and knows it but is just dying for a nice pay day regardless of the working conditions and leadership around him. In other words -- a coach who doesn't "get it" and would face-plant the program. If you'd like to put a name and face to that type of person, let me help you: Ben Lindsey. That's what you'd be getting. A Ben Lindsey-type who would be so far in over his head it would be an epic embarrassment. And Robbins would think he made a great hire until the recruits bolt and the losses pile up. How does a 4-24 & 1-17 record sound? No fucking thanks. Extend Sean Miller. NOW!

Yeah, I know. We're a horrible job. Who would want to come to Arizona, get paid $3.5M+ a year (or whatever it is) and have no expectations for a couple years while you get to build.

I don't know what to tell you guys. Clearly you seem interested in grinding out some more seasons of RPI 35 basketball. You might get your wish. You'd think three would be enough, but apparently not. So we'll grind out some more shit basketball; and don't delude yourself, that's what it is. Three years of the least compelling shit I've ever seen from Arizona hoops. And that's the problem now; it's not even that we're bad and we're angry, it's that we seem to be getting to a point where people don't even give a shit anymore. Conference games this year with 30 or 40 posts in the thread? That's magic, it's right where you wanna to be.

One day we're going to look back on this and think about how wrong we were. I hope that person is me. But I'd happy put my own money down on "it's not me."

So who is the coach that will turn the program around?

Chicat wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:55 am So who is the coach that will turn the program around?

Take a top 25 list of the best college coaches. Pick a name off the list that isn't Sean Miller.

Chicat wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:55 am So who is the coach that will turn the program around?

Question wasn't for me, but I think it's that some AZ fans would prefer the unknown to what we currently have. There's this idea that *any* new coach would be better than Miller.

SCCats wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:52 am Yeah, I know. We're a horrible job. Who would want to come to Arizona, get paid $3.5M+ a year (or whatever it is) and have no expectations for a couple years while you get to build.

I don't know what to tell you guys. Clearly you seem interested in grinding out some more seasons of RPI 35 basketball. You might get your wish. You'd think three would be enough, but apparently not. So we'll grind out some more shit basketball; and don't delude yourself, that's what it is. Three years of the least compelling shit I've ever seen from Arizona hoops. And that's the problem now; it's not even that we're bad and we're angry, it's that we seem to be getting to a point where people don't even give a shit anymore. Conference games this year with 30 or 40 posts in the thread? That's magic, it's right where you wanna to be.

One day we're going to look back on this and think about how wrong we were. I hope that person is me. But I'd happy put my own money down on "it's not me."

I'm starting to think you don't want to try to name better coaches.

The thing about complaints, everyone's infallible when it comes to monday morning quarterbacking. It's much harder to find better solutions.

Which is why I'm much more interested to hear your list of coaches who are better than Miller than your list of complaints.

SCCats wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:04 am

Chicat wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:55 am So who is the coach that will turn the program around?

Take a top 25 list of the best college coaches. Pick a name off the list that isn't Sean Miller.

That doesn't even make sense. Many of those coaches are in better situations or aren't at an age where they would want to start over from scratch rebuilding a program from the ground up.

How many of those 25 would take the Arizona job this year and who are they?

Beachcat97 wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:06 am

Chicat wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:55 am So who is the coach that will turn the program around?

Question wasn't for me, but I think it's that some AZ fans would prefer the unknown to what we currently have. There's this idea that *any* new coach would be better than Miller.

That makes even LESS sense. Any coach? ANY? C'mon... Herb Sendek is a step up?

SCCats wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:52 am Yeah, I know. We're a horrible job. Who would want to come to Arizona, get paid $3.5M+ a year (or whatever it is) and have no expectations for a couple years while you get to build.

I don't know what to tell you guys. Clearly you seem interested in grinding out some more seasons of RPI 35 basketball. You might get your wish. You'd think three would be enough, but apparently not. So we'll grind out some more shit basketball; and don't delude yourself, that's what it is. Three years of the least compelling shit I've ever seen from Arizona hoops. And that's the problem now; it's not even that we're bad and we're angry, it's that we seem to be getting to a point where people don't even give a shit anymore. Conference games this year with 30 or 40 posts in the thread? That's magic, it's right where you wanna to be.

One day we're going to look back on this and think about how wrong we were. I hope that person is me. But I'd happy put my own money down on "it's not me."

I'll take that bet. Right now. How about a C-note?

Sure, there are plenty of coaches out there that you and 99% of the fans have never heard of who would jump at a nice payday. And most of them don't have the coaching ability (X's& O's, recruiting ability, etc..) to pull it off. Who are you gonna hand the keys to? Damon Stoudamire? Jason Terry? Talk about a roll of the dice.


The three years are an aberration. It's over and done. The new foundation has already been laid and the framing is up. The entire team that matters is coming back next season: Mathurin, Terry, JBrown, Koloko, Tubelis, Kriisa, Akinjo. Plus three incoming players that will further cement roster stability. That's a pre-season top 25 right there -- and probably picked "by the experts" to finish 2nd to UCLA in the Pac. And that doesn't even consider possible late commits or transfers. At worst you're looking at an NCAA tournament team -- certainly capable of a Sweet 16 run. That's not SHIT basketball (your words, not mine). And a solid recruiting class to build on. That's progress. That's where you'd want to be with any new coach in 3-4 years. You have that RIGHT NOW.

Whoever you bring in for a rebuild (for a couple years..again your words, not mine) immediately means taking a wrecking ball to the current young and promising roster. Gone. At least the ones that really matter -- Akinjo, Tubelis, Mathurin. See ya.

So I'll put $100 up right now on the following:

Arizona finishing 1st or 2nd in the Pac next season.
Arizona being a pre-season top 25 team.
Arizona getting a 5-seed or better in the NCAA tournament.

Chicat wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:10 am That makes even LESS sense. Any coach? ANY? C'mon... Herb Sendek is a step up?

This is not my opinion. It's just what I've noticed among people who want Miller gone. Their desire to fire Miller greatly outweighs their confidence that we can hire someone better.