At Texas A&M in the Southeastern conference? The SEC is generally around the fifth best basketball conference among the five power conferences, as seen by the strength of schedule, the RPI, and the amount of teams to consistently get into the tournament.

Given that criteria, I think we should demand a coach that has us in the tournament one out of every two years at a minimum. It's all about results.

BQ_90 said:

---

You're seeing what's acceptable to those in charge

---

Well, I already know that. We seem more focused on "coach is a nice guy" across the board in sports rather than being results-focused.

Well it might not matter. AU fires coaches all the time and aren't much better except in their football results

Depend on the talent. At the beginning of the season, I would have been ok with an NIT berth.

With that said, I always want my team to make an NCAA tournament.

If you believe long term expectations are pointless then how you can have expectations for trajectory? If a well financially supported program like A&M's is on an good trajectory most years, then they will be in the hunt for the dance most years.

Minimum requirements: NCAA Tournament every 2 out of 3 years (65-70% of the time at least).

Expectations: NCAA Tournament 80% of the time OR 65-70% of the time with advancement to the second weekend once out of every four tournament years.

I meant specific expectations are pointless because situations change in a hurry in college basketball.

I don't necessarily disagree with such standards, though until the entire SEC conference as a whole gets better, I think it will be even more challenging for the SEC schools not named Kentucky to reach that high a bar.

The issue is partly an SEC conference problem right now, not just an individual school problem. The conference needs to get to the point where it is sending at least 5-6 schools per year to NCAA and not just 3 (like the last two seasons). The conference needs to get to the point where a 10-8 record in conference generally means an NCAA bid and not a death sentence.

The SEC conference keeps sending only 2-3 teams to NCAA outside of Kentucky, then you will continue see what you have been seeing the past 4-5 years. Not much consistency (outside Kentucky). The conference as a whole is making it that much harder on its members rising up and then staying afloat.

Now the past few years have seen some high profile hires like Pearl, Howland, Barnes, Avery Sr., but none of those guys seem to be panning out quick getting the conference quality up.

bobinator said:

---

I meant specific expectations are pointless because situations change in a hurry in college basketball.

---

Yeah but I guess I took the question from the aspect of what expectations need to be met to keep a head coach -- so if situations have changed causing upward trajectory to still not have us in the tournament, then it's likely either we've already got a new coach or the current one has done something to severely damage the level of program and probably should be fired.

I don't see any situation where we would find it acceptable to be "getting better every year" but not in the tournament most of those years without a coaching change having just occurred or in need of occurring.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

I don't necessarily disagree with such standards, though until the entire SEC conference as a whole gets better, I think it will be even more challenging for the SEC schools not named Kentucky to reach that high a bar.

The issue is partly an SEC conference problem right now, not just an individual school problem. The conference needs to get to the point where it is sending at least 5-6 schools per year to NCAA and not just 3 (like the last two seasons). The conference needs to get to the point where a 10-8 record in conference generally means an NCAA bid and not a death sentence.

The SEC conference keeps sending only 2-3 teams to NCAA outside of Kentucky, then you will continue see what you have been seeing the past 4-5 years. Not much consistency (outside Kentucky). The conference as a whole is making it that much harder on its members rising up and then staying afloat.

Now the past few years have seen some high profile hires like Pearl, Howland, Barnes, Avery Sr., but none of those guys seem to be panning out quick getting the conference quality up.

---

While I agree I'd like to see a better brand of college basketball conference-wide (from a viewer standpoint and also a resume building standpoint), but I think it's excuse-making to imply that because the conference is so bad it's "even more challenging" for A&M.

If the other teams aren't good, then it should be easier for A&M to beat them. A&M isn't because A&M isn't very good. I know the thought process may be that that if we're 10-8 in the SEC just because of the "numbers game", then we'd likely be at 0.500ish team in a better conference... but reality is we'd likely be under 0.500 if our opponents were better.

To use Kentucky as an example seemingly paints a picture that unless A&M is Kentucky, then with the current state of the SEC thinking that we can make the tournament most years isn't likely... and that's a buncha crap.

Maybe a rising tide lifts all boats, but if you've got a crappy boat then all a rising tide does is bury you deeper underwater.

A&M isn't a tournament team because of A&M... Not because the Arkansas' and the LSU's and the Missouri's aren't pulling their weight.

Additional note on my last post, I saw Seth Davis recently answer a mailbag question on why does the SEC stink at basketball, and Davis basically replied that wven despite some of the recent name hires like Pearl, Howland, Barnes, Avery Sr, etc, he thinks there is an inherent cultural issue that the SEC just generally does not focus as much on basketball as the ACC, big 12, Big 10, etc. football is the main deal and basketball coaches (even the good ones hired) simply don't have quite the same intensity of commitment and pressures to win.

I kind of see his point. Take even a guy like Bruce Pearl for instance. Auburn is still terrible in Year 3. IMO, A program like Iowa State would probably be getting geared up to run him out of town (or at least the heat hotter than what he is getting at Auburn).

I don't think it is the main problem, but it is a problem. The margin of error for your average SEC team is smaller than your average Big 12 team. More chances for bad losses and less chances for quality wins in conference play.

Pearl was successful in the SEC.

I guess I've just stopped worrying about what percentage of the time we should be making the tournament in a perfect situation that we never seem to get to. But I do generally agree with your expectations, I've just changed the way I try to think about it.

I agree A&M has to do its part and commit and make good hires and schedule well etc., but see my last post to Bobinator. The SEC being the worst major conference in non-con play it adding yet another degree of difficulty to programs getting NCAA bids.

Take last year. I think a team like South Carolina would have made NCAA had the conference been better. But It wasn't and then add on South Carolina weak non-con and they got left out.

I know there's a smaller margin for error, but it's also easier to win. I think it evens out.

Put it this way: is there anyone you can think of that was good enough to make the tournament but didn't because of the conference they were in?

Pumpkinhead said:

---

I agree A&M has to do its part and commit and make good hires and schedule well etc., but see my last post to Bobinator. The SEC being the worst major conference in non-con play it adding yet another degree of difficulty to programs getting NCAA bids.

---

It was awful last year and we got to be a 3 seed. Just have to be good.

Bob, I am not agreeing with that 'easier to win' thing as much as others. Conference road games seem to be tough even vs mediocre teams. But when the conference is bad the risk is higher and reward is less to get a road win.

Method Man said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

I agree A&M has to do its part and commit and make good hires and schedule well etc., but see my last post to Bobinator. The SEC being the worst major conference in non-con play it adding yet another degree of difficulty to programs getting NCAA bids.

---

It was awful last year and we got to be a 3 seed. Just have to be good.

---

If your good then you're good, strength of conference helps get in those bottom dwellers who most likely don't advance past one game

bobinator said:

---

I guess I've just stopped worrying about what percentage of the time we should be making the tournament in a perfect situation that we never seem to get to. But I do generally agree with your expectations, I've just changed the way I try to think about it.

---

We were there though -- with two different coaches... Both of which have gone on to prove they aren't world-beaters... so I think that's a fair level of expectations. I wasn't happy that Turgeon wasn't recruiting to get us to that next level, but as long as he was making the tournament 2 out 3 years at A&M I don't think anyone realistically would have called for his head.

Bob, just last year I think South Carolina would have gotten in if the conference did not suck. It was their fault too with the weak non-con schedule, but then the conference lack of strength partly finished them off at the end IMO.

But that's kind of my point, we've only been close to that level for a tiny stretch of our history and we couldn't hold on to the two coaches that got us there. So it's hard to say those are realistic long term expectations when we haven't shown we can sustain anything close to that level historically.

But also I like thinking of it this way because if we were making the tournament 3 years out of 5 over a long time, eventually that would get old and you'd expect to be better because at that point we would have elevated our program up a level.

BQ_90 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

I agree A&M has to do its part and commit and make good hires and schedule well etc., but see my last post to Bobinator. The SEC being the worst major conference in non-con play it adding yet another degree of difficulty to programs getting NCAA bids.

---

It was awful last year and we got to be a 3 seed. Just have to be good.

---

If your good then you're good, strength of conference helps get in those bottom dwellers who most likely don't advance past one game

---

Exactly my point. Which is still at least a better chance for a more mediocre team to at least 'get in' the NCAAT. The SEC as a whole does itself no favors.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Take last year. I think a team like South Carolina would have made NCAA had the conference been better. But It wasn't and then add on South Carolina weak non-con and they got left out.

---

All other things being equal, sure -- had the teams South Carolina lost to and beat been better, then their overall resume would have looked better.

But why would you assume if the conference competition was better last year that South Carolina's conference record would have been the same?

If the SEC overall was better, maybe they don't beat Ole Miss or Florida in overtime wind up 10-8 or 9-9 and get left out anyways.


A better overall conference would be nice from the standpoint that a 0.500 conference team heading into February is still in decent shape if they go on a nice run (instead of the current state where they basically have to run the tale), but other conference teams failing to get better isn't impacting our inability to get better... and from your post it actually sounds like it's enabling bad teams to be bad because they can point to other conference teams and say "well they aren't good either". That's not a winning mentality.

In the case of the women's program, and in the case of both the Gillespie and Turgeon teams , A&M can consistently compete at a high enough level to go to the NCAAs every year. Competing for conference championships and going to the dance are my expectations and I refuse to let Billy Kennedy make me accept anything else.

South Carolina is a weird example because they screwed themselves with their non-con schedule. And if they would have been in the Big 12, its hard to know what kind of record they'd have had.

It seems to even out via KenPom and that sort of thing most the time right? I guess what I'm saying is it could matter, but I don't think it matters enough of the time to factor it into program expectations.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

BQ_90 said:

---

Method Man said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

I agree A&M has to do its part and commit and make good hires and schedule well etc., but see my last post to Bobinator. The SEC being the worst major conference in non-con play it adding yet another degree of difficulty to programs getting NCAA bids.

---

It was awful last year and we got to be a 3 seed. Just have to be good.

---

If your good then you're good, strength of conference helps get in those bottom dwellers who most likely don't advance past one game

---

Exactly my point. Which is still at least a better chance for a more mediocre team to at least 'get in' the NCAAT. The SEC as a whole does itself no favors.

---

I won't disagree there. Our biggest scheduling problem this season was we had very few nonconference games that were relatively winnable and/or quality.

free_mhayden said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Take last year. I think a team like South Carolina would have made NCAA had the conference been better. But It wasn't and then add on South Carolina weak non-con and they got left out.

---

All other things being equal, sure -- had the teams South Carolina lost to and beat been better, then their overall resume would have looked better.

But why would you assume if the conference competition was better last year that South Carolina's conference record would have been the same?

If the SEC overall was better, maybe they don't beat Ole Miss or Florida in overtime wind up 10-8 or 9-9 and get left out anyways.


A better overall conference would be nice from the standpoint that a 0.500 conference team heading into February is still in decent shape if they go on a nice run (instead of the current state where they basically have to run the tale),

---

Mhayden, I don't disagree with you. Just was also pointing out that The SEC being bad as a whole reduces the margin of error making it that much harder on 'bubble NCAAT' SEC teams to build a resume and more 'bad loss' land mines to get through.

I understand what you're saying and I'm not trying to say that you are blaming all of A&M's woes on the whole conference being bad.

I'm just saying that saying something like "well the strength of the conference doesn't do A&M any favors" really doesn't jive. You can't assume if the conference was better that our performance would be equal. The logical thing to assume is if the competition is better, our record would be worse.