|
|
Post by govols85 on Jul 31, 2022 19:39:56 GMT -5
To be fair to CRB, he’s given us more than could be expected of his teams with exception of the NCAAT. Additionally, he’s had a number of tough losses of key players at critical moments or even long stretches. Those include Punter, Alexander, Turner, Fulky multiple times, and JJJ. I don’t think any of us really appreciate how some of these kids like Fulky and JJJ have tried to fight through illness and injuries to stay on the court. Agreed, but unfortunately the NCAAT exception is kind of a glaring one. LOL! I know and we agree on this, but we also agree that the present is better than the multiple bad stretches that this program has had. |
|
|
|
Post by cherokee04 on Jul 31, 2022 21:39:24 GMT -5
Agreed, but unfortunately the NCAAT exception is kind of a glaring one. LOL! I know and we agree on this, but we also agree that the present is better than the multiple bad stretches that this program has had. Well sure. I can't imagine anyone that would disagree that consistently being in the upper third of the conference and going to the NCAAT is better than our bad stretches. Like everyone else, I'd just like to see our historical success translate into major NCAAT success more than once every blue moon. Fair or not, the lack of NCAAT success is why both UT and CRB are considered good but not really elite historically. People remember March much more than anything that happens from November through the end of the regular season. But getting the SECT monkey off our back last year was really nice! |
|
|
|
Post by brewii on Aug 1, 2022 5:59:46 GMT -5
To be fair to CRB, he’s given us more than could be expected of his teams with exception of the NCAAT. Additionally, he’s had a number of tough losses of key players at critical moments or even long stretches. Those include Punter, Alexander, Turner, Fulky multiple times, and JJJ. I don’t think any of us really appreciate how some of these kids like Fulky and JJJ have tried to fight through illness and injuries to stay on the court. Agreed, but unfortunately the NCAAT exception is kind of a glaring one. Yea I was thinking of his tourney record when making my previous comment, not the regular season results comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by cherokee04 on Aug 1, 2022 7:41:44 GMT -5
Agreed, but unfortunately the NCAAT exception is kind of a glaring one. Yea I was thinking of his tourney record when making my previous comment, not the regular season results comparison. Yeah, I knew that was what you were talking about. It's just such a bizarre thing. To be SO consistently good over the long haul, getting into the NCAAT at a high rate that few coaches do, at different programs, proves that CRB is a very good coach. I really wish I could explain the high rate of short stays though. There are theories out there, but I don't think anyone can really say we know what the discrepancy is. The quality of competition goes up, but that doesn't really explain it to me either because of the high number of losses to lower seeds against almost no wins against higher seeds. I would at least expect that number to be a lot closer to a wash, but it's really not close. I'd have to look it up again, but I think it was something like one win over a higher seed with 14 losses against lower seeds, and I think that was before we lost to lower seed Michigan last season. I don't have the energy now to go try to figure it out again, but at some point I'll do so. |
|
|
|
Post by pdlglm on Aug 1, 2022 8:38:55 GMT -5
Barnes has 4 SEC tourneys with multiple wins - that is double any other UT coach. So that part of the post season has been pretty good.
It is the 1 multi-win NCAAT that is the sticking point. Really need to start getting to that second weekend.
|
|
|
|
Post by hamiltonvol on Aug 1, 2022 16:33:54 GMT -5
Yea I was thinking of his tourney record when making my previous comment, not the regular season results comparison. Yeah, I knew that was what you were talking about. It's just such a bizarre thing. To be SO consistently good over the long haul, getting into the NCAAT at a high rate that few coaches do, at different programs, proves that CRB is a very good coach. I really wish I could explain the high rate of short stays though. There are theories out there, but I don't think anyone can really say we know what the discrepancy is. The quality of competition goes up, but that doesn't really explain it to me either because of the high number of losses to lower seeds against almost no wins against higher seeds. I would at least expect that number to be a lot closer to a wash, but it's really not close. I'd have to look it up again, but I think it was something like one win over a higher seed with 14 losses against lower seeds, and I think that was before we lost to lower seed Michigan last season. I don't have the energy now to go try to figure it out again, but at some point I'll do so. I think one of the main problems--and I believed this to be true for Bruce's teams also, back when I cared more about the team Bruce coached--is that they're too good at the regular season. Most teams, regardless of talent, take nights off. Bruce's teams and Pearl's teams kind of don't (at least, not many). Thus, they get a little over-seeded. Take Michigan in 2022 for example. That team was LOADED. How did they basically go .500 in the regular season and almost not make the tourney?? I have no idea, but it created a funky situation. In terms of seed it looks like UT got upset, but in terms of talent, arguably Michigan had the better roster. Similar deal with Pearl's #2 seed at UT in 2006, e.g. That team just won and won, but honestly was kinda duct tape and popsicle sticks in some ways, and flamed out in round 2. (also I continue to believe small sample size is doing some work here.) |
|
|
|
Post by pdlglm on Aug 1, 2022 17:27:04 GMT -5
I think last year was nothing more than a team that was prone to have some really awful nights from three ended up having their worst 3pt shooting night of the season at a terrible time.
2-18.
Plus we played some of our worst defense of the year.
|
|
|
|
Post by cherokee04 on Aug 1, 2022 19:55:18 GMT -5
Yeah, I knew that was what you were talking about. It's just such a bizarre thing. To be SO consistently good over the long haul, getting into the NCAAT at a high rate that few coaches do, at different programs, proves that CRB is a very good coach. I really wish I could explain the high rate of short stays though. There are theories out there, but I don't think anyone can really say we know what the discrepancy is. The quality of competition goes up, but that doesn't really explain it to me either because of the high number of losses to lower seeds against almost no wins against higher seeds. I would at least expect that number to be a lot closer to a wash, but it's really not close. I'd have to look it up again, but I think it was something like one win over a higher seed with 14 losses against lower seeds, and I think that was before we lost to lower seed Michigan last season. I don't have the energy now to go try to figure it out again, but at some point I'll do so. I think one of the main problems--and I believed this to be true for Bruce's teams also, back when I cared more about the team Bruce coached--is that they're too good at the regular season. Most teams, regardless of talent, take nights off. Bruce's teams and Pearl's teams kind of don't (at least, not many). Thus, they get a little over-seeded. Take Michigan in 2022 for example. That team was LOADED. How did they basically go .500 in the regular season and almost not make the tourney?? I have no idea, but it created a funky situation. In terms of seed it looks like UT got upset, but in terms of talent, arguably Michigan had the better roster. Similar deal with Pearl's #2 seed at UT in 2006, e.g. That team just won and won, but honestly was kinda duct tape and popsicle sticks in some ways, and flamed out in round 2. (also I continue to believe small sample size is doing some work here.) What is it that you consider to be a small sample size? CRB's tourney numbers overall? Something else? |
|
|
|
Post by contextmatters on Aug 4, 2022 16:47:00 GMT -5
. . . (also I continue to believe small sample size is doing some work here.) What is it that you consider to be a small sample size? CRB's tourney numbers overall? Something else? Since Ham has apparently crawled back into bed for the Summer, I'll guess he would answer your questions with "Yes." |
|
|
|
Post by pdlglm on Aug 4, 2022 16:50:35 GMT -5
What is it that you consider to be a small sample size? CRB's tourney numbers overall? Something else? Since Ham has apparently crawled back into bed for the Summer, I'll guess he would answer your questions with "Yes." I think he would answer it with... 0-32. |
|
|
|
Post by hamiltonvol on Aug 5, 2022 13:51:11 GMT -5
What is it that you consider to be a small sample size? CRB's tourney numbers overall? Something else? I think "NCAA tournament record" is a weird and mostly meaningless stat. It's about a game a year, give or take. Some of those games might be lopsided in terms of seeding. Some might feature weird things like an injured or missing key player, or inappropriate or weird seeding, or an extremely lucky or unlucky shooting night for a key player. I think the NCAAT features a lot of weird stories like that, and it doesn't make any mathematical sense to just blindly add them up. "Coach Clutchy McClutcherson has an NCAAT record of 12-10!" ...I mean, without context I have literally no idea if that's great or awful. You'd have to do more research. I don't know...I guess just adding up things that are rare and not like each other, and drawing sweeping conclusions, makes my spidey senses ping like crazy. |
|
|
|
Post by pdlglm on Aug 5, 2022 14:02:02 GMT -5
What is it that you consider to be a small sample size? CRB's tourney numbers overall? Something else? I think "NCAA tournament record" is a weird and mostly meaningless stat. It's about a game a year it certainly is for us.... |
|
|
|
Post by cherokee04 on Aug 5, 2022 14:13:27 GMT -5
What is it that you consider to be a small sample size? CRB's tourney numbers overall? Something else? I think "NCAA tournament record" is a weird and mostly meaningless stat. It's about a game a year, give or take. Some of those games might be lopsided in terms of seeding. Some might feature weird things like an injured or missing key player, or inappropriate or weird seeding, or an extremely lucky or unlucky shooting night for a key player. I think the NCAAT features a lot of weird stories like that, and it doesn't make any mathematical sense to just blindly add them up. "Coach Clutchy McClutcherson has an NCAAT record of 12-10!" ...I mean, without context I have literally no idea if that's great or awful. You'd have to do more research. I don't know...I guess just adding up things that are rare and not like each other, and drawing sweeping conclusions, makes my spidey senses ping like crazy. I think the NCAA Tournament CAN be a meaningless stat, depending on which program a coach is at and/or how limited his number of appearances in the tourney are. But I think it attains more meaning as the numbers accumulate and the vast majority of the games have come at quality basketball programs rather than at small schools. I don't know what CRB's average seeding would be if we looked at it, but I doubt the bulk of his appearances are as lower seeds. I'm not sure what "blindly" adding them up is. The numbers add up, period. Whether those numbers tell us much or not is, I would agree, a valid question and the circumstances have a lot to do with that. A guy who hasn't been to many tournaments, or has made several but at a lower tier program and generally faces higher seeds, can't really be looked at very critically in the postseason. Barnes has been in, I believe, 26 tournaments over about 30ish seasons (focusing on his time at Clemson, Texas and Tennessee). In that context, I look at his overall records in the regular season and NCAAT, the programs he has led in those tournaments, his record against higher seeds and lower seeds, and it doesn't seem a reach to me to think that his NCAAT record does not hold up very well against his regular season record even given the better competition overall. With Barnes, his general postseason average is right at two games/year (slightly less since he has one fewer win than total number of tourneys I think). I don't think you can pick this year or that and draw conclusions on two games, but I think after about 50 games over 26 tourneys, most of them leading pretty solid programs, a picture emerges that tends to flatten out things like seeding, missing players, off shooting nights, etc. Would I like it better if we had three games or four games/year in the NCAAT to evaluate? Yep. But then that would negate the whole premise of this discussion. All JMO, and I think Barnes is a very good basketball coach. But I struggle to dismiss his overall NCAAT performance as something that is weird, meaningless or somewhat random, not after this many appearances in leading quality programs, and with the disparity in losses to lower seeds vs. wins against higher seeds that we see (and yes, I expect to see SOME of that, given that I think CRB teams will likely face lower seeds more often than higher seeds by virtue of generally being a relatively higher seeded team itself). |
|
|
|
Post by pdlglm on Aug 5, 2022 14:52:57 GMT -5
I understand that from a statistics point of view that there may not be enough games to make a scientific determination about how 'good' or 'bad' a particular coach is in the tourney. Heck, I am not sure that there are enough games in a college season to necessarily meet that kind of criteria.
But it doesn't matter.
In college hoops the object of the whole dang thing is to win in the tourney. So it may not be fair - anymore than it is fair to say that Marv Levy wasn't a good Super Bowl coach, but I still think when your record is as unfortunate as Deacon's for as long as it has been that it is ok to say that his coaching doesn't translate to the tourney well.
|
|
|
|
Post by contextmatters on Aug 5, 2022 15:11:18 GMT -5
I mean, without context I have literally no idea if that's great or awful.
Sorry. I can't help ya, buddy. I don't think there's enough data either.
|
|
