The thing is that at the beginning of the year, we were playing well. We played USC, UCLA, and Arizona very close. And then once we started conference play, the wheels kind of fell off, although we played well in spurts against some tougher competition (West Va.).

It all points to coaching - the turnovers, lack of consistency, etc.

As someone who went to school when BB sucked (and went to every game), again, we should consistently be in the tournament a minimum of 1 out of every 2 years, being in the NIT the other year given the place we find out BB team in.

Mhayden, I don't think the conference strength does any one in the conference any favors, either in terms of bubble teams on the edge or the seeding of teams in the NCAA.

Last year the SEC conference co-champs got 3 seeds. IMO that was partly because the SEC gave them more chances to get a bad loss added to their resume. Teams like Auburn and Alabama were not that good last year, but Kentucky and A&M still dropped games to them. Because most conference road games are land mines.

I think the 'wheels fall off' partly because teams start to get more tape on you and the scouting improves. Tbe opponents see what other did successfully vs you (or not) and start to adjust and then if you don't adjust or have a decent response back then bye bye.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

I think the 'wheels fall off' partly because teams start to get more tape on you and the scouting improves. Tbe opponents see what other did successfully vs you (or not) and start to adjust and then if you don't adjust or have a decent response back then bye bye.

---

Again, all points to coaching - head or assistant.

PH, I think my issue with the conference thing on this thread is it just doesn't really matter all that often for judging your program long-term. If you want to put specific numbers on it you aren't going to say we should make the tourney 60-70% of the time in the Big 12 but 50-60% in the SEC right?

Top 3 in the SEC and make the dance every year...That's being considered in the top 64 teams every year...I realize there are auto bids which reduces the 64 number....but without doing the math does that put a team in the top 30-40?...I don't think that expecting a top 3 finish in the SEC and making the tourney based on resume' or a conference tourney championship is too low of a bar for our school and it's resources. Not making the tournament is below my expectation for this university.

I agree with posters saying the bar should be that we should make NCAA most years, and not even being NIT should be an unusual event.

Just point out that conference strength being crappy makes it that much harder on 'bubble' teams to get in. Less chances for quality wins. More chances for bad losses (and road games vs mediocre to bad opponents can always be landlines in particular).

Recruiting, player development and preparation, in-game rotations and strategy...all coAching.

I personally give recruiting and roster construction/retention a higher weight (jimmies and joes not X's and O's) than some of the other stuff people seem to focus on. but all seem important to me to overall success.

Tournament 75% of the time, final four every 8 years, sweet 16 every fourth year

GE said:

---

Tournament 75% of the time, final four every 8 years, sweet 16 every fourth year

---

I think I would say having a team worthy of being Final Four quality that often wouldn't be that out of the question. 2 or 3 of our run of NCAA tournies were at that level I think.

I don't know how often we should think we ought to be in the Final Four, but if you're routinely a good, solid tournament team, you almost should make one at some point or another out of shear luck.

I think you can at least hold that as far as the Elite Eight without much argument.

Acceptable results are what we had under BCG and Turgeon

Get a good coach and we will be tourney bound just about every year

Pumpkinhead said:

---

I think the 'wheels fall off' partly because teams start to get more tape on you and the scouting improves. Tbe opponents see what other did successfully vs you (or not) and start to adjust and then if you don't adjust or have a decent response back then bye bye.

---

Which is evened out by you having film on that other team also

Evened out with us having film, but only if we have good coaches that can counter scheme

The teams with the better coaches take better advantage

Tribe2013 said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

I think the 'wheels fall off' partly because teams start to get more tape on you and the scouting improves. Tbe opponents see what other did successfully vs you (or not) and start to adjust and then if you don't adjust or have a decent response back then bye bye.

---

Which is evened out by you having film on that other team also

---

I don't know if the information always 'evens out'. Probably depends somewhat on what the flaws are and the matchup issues and so forth. Obviously watching A&M, the flaws are primarily in the back court and those flaws have obviously been taken advantage of by better teams who use schemes against us to try to exploit that (e.g., almost continuous double teams of our bigs, etc). A&M seemed to struggle trying to figure out any sort of consistent plan in the back court with a variety of flawed options in Collins, Hampton, Chase Carlton, Eubanks, Smith etc.

Eventually one thing that you saw happen is Gilder simply start playing literally 40 minutes per game. You saw them pretty much go with freshman Robert Williams as a starter over Trocha. You can see as the games have played out and Davis/Williams/Trocha have gotten more time with each other that the big-to-big passing has improved. You have seen Tyler Davis gradually get better at handling double teams (for one, he is doing a better job actually letting the double team come to him first before then reacting, rather than too quickly trying to back out of the double team or make a pass.

The freshman Williams seems to be getting better and better finding the other guys instead of turning the ball over. Obviously Hogg foot injury in the middle probably didn't help in terms of struggling to find some roster continuity.

The season is pretty disappointing, though at least to the team's credit, they haven't seemed to just fall off the map and mail it in, like Auburn has now seemed to do (Auburn's defensive play the past several games is pretty inexcusable IMO. They have been really terrible and are giving up historical performances to opponents. They allowed the most points ever scored by Florida in the history of the Gator program, allowed what may have been the second best FG% all-time in an SEC conference game to A&M.

The team actually seems to have gotten better in some aspects. Gilder has really come along. Robert Williams has gotten better and better as the season has progressed in stuff like passing chemistry between him and Davis/Trocha (as I mentioned above). Tyler Davis has seen to grow more in terms of handling double team pressure (as I mentioned) But then there are other guys who didn't show much this season. Has been a mixed bag with the net result being disappointing obviously.

NOTE: I do find this season unacceptable and very disappointing. The coaching staff screwed up getting us in the guard situation that we were in this season. Obviously A++++ for finding/landing a guy like Robert Williams which ain't easy to do, but the guard thing really put them in a bind. By trying to note some of the 'improved play' stuff that I feel like I have seen lately, does not mean I am trying to change the negative mood of this board. I totally understand the negativity.

Melvin's 0-16 season had some bright spots too

free_mhayden said:

---

Melvin's 0-16 season had some bright spots too

---

Yeah, what were they?

People don't remember that for as bad as we were, we were quite competitive -- even against good teams.

Took Top 20 Kansas and Texas Tech to the wire.... Of the 16 regular season conference losses, only 5 were by more than 10 points.

Tribe2013 said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

I think the 'wheels fall off' partly because teams start to get more tape on you and the scouting improves. Tbe opponents see what other did successfully vs you (or not) and start to adjust and then if you don't adjust or have a decent response back then bye bye.

---

Which is evened out by you having film on that other team also

---

Not necessarily. Some teams have a fatal flaw that once exposed they just don't have the personnel to cover up. Other teams may have more options so if you start scheming to take away their inside game they start running more stuff on the perimeter or slashing with their guards.

an unfortunate combination of things has led to a situation that other teams have successfully exploited when they have played us this season - as another poster pointed out, there are some flaws that truly cannot be schemed around, and BK has done well in spite of those
personally I think that this year will not be the norm for this coach (I know a lot of posters disagree, but Cyp running the team and then the recruiting being dismantled after that disaster trashed BKs first two years and most here truly ought to be able to acknowledge that) - we saw three straight years of solid improvement when the early hurdles were overcome
the improvement of Tyler and Admon this season will be a tremendous asset for whoever coaches the team next year
I think that BK has built the recruiting back up to where we ought to expect NCAA or NIT yearly
I think we ought to expect occasional sweet sixteens (current coach has one of two in school history?)
I think if we go to the NIT we should expect at least two victories there

free_mhayden said:

---

People don't remember that for as bad as we were, we were quite competitive -- even against good teams.

Took Top 20 Kansas and Texas Tech to the wire.... Of the 16 regular season conference losses, only 5 were by more than 10 points.

---

Uh huh. Did they ever actually play well enough for 40 minutes on any particular day to actually win a conference game?

What we've seen at A&M and many other schools in this region is that a good coach has the tools to be in the NCAAs every year or close to it.

I recognize that we won't get every hire right, and we'll be better for it if we retain our next good coach, but if we're failing to make the NCAAs pretty regularly, that's on the coach in my mind.

Kansas football has bad facilities*, bad support, and a lack of proximity to fertile recruiting grounds.

A&M has good facilities, decent support, and proximity to fertile recruiting grounds.

That's a strained comparison at best.


*They just opened up some stuff so we'll see how it goes.

Quote:

---

Billy Kennedy isn't the soles reason you aren't going to the NCAA's every year.

---

Yet you tout his recruiting.

It's not a recruiting problem based on that. It's an Xs and Os problem. That's not on the students. That's not on our financial statement (we have plenty of money). Thats not on a lack of suites. That's on the coaching.

Hop didn't say the current issue wasn't coaching, he said the support of the program is a reason getting to the NCAAs every season isn't a realistic expectation.

Don't turn this into a "Kennedy sucks" thread, because that isn't what this thread is about.

amc70 said:

---

an unfortunate combination of things has led to a situation that other teams have successfully exploited when they have played us this season - as another poster pointed out, there are some flaws that truly cannot be schemed around, and BK has done well in spite of those
personally I think that this year will not be the norm for this coach (I know a lot of posters disagree, but Cyp running the team and then the recruiting being dismantled after that disaster trashed BKs first two years and most here truly ought to be able to acknowledge that) - we saw three straight years of solid improvement when the early hurdles were overcome
the improvement of Tyler and Admon this season will be a tremendous asset for whoever coaches the team next year
I think that BK has built the recruiting back up to where we ought to expect NCAA or NIT yearly
I think we ought to expect occasional sweet sixteens (current coach has one of two in school history?)
I think if we go to the NIT we should expect at least two victories there

---

After the trash first two years we did not see three straight years of solid improvement. I wish people would stop parroting this because certain posters incorrectly use it to defend bad positions.


KenPom had our 2014 season significantly worse than 2013.

RPI had our 2014 season significantly worse than 2013.

Sagarin had our 2014 season significantly worse than 2013.

Hop said:

---

DogCompany74 said:

---

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.

---

Billy Kennedy isn't the soles reason you aren't going to the NCAA's every year. Texas A&M and Texas A&M former students are the reasons why A&M isn't going to the NCAA's every year. If Texas A&M is a desirable destination for basketball coaches, then the good ones wouldn't leave after three years.

A&M basketball fans saying A&M deserves to make it to the NCAA's every year is like a Kansas football fan justifying the expectation that Kansas should make a BCS bowl every 3-4 years based on Mark Mangino getting them to the Orange Bowl in 2008.

A&M needs to upgrade everything before expectations of going to the NCAA's every year are realistic ...support, program revenue, marketing, coaching, greater interest from students, etc.

---

Hop, both Baylor and the longhorns (two universities within a hour and half drive from College Station) have recently been able to find pretty sustained NCAA tournament success (Drew and Barnes). Now, it is true that both Drew and Barnes stayed at their respective schools a long time. So neither school had to go out and hunt for a new coach every 3 to 4 seasons like A&M was forced to after finally finding some sustained basketball success.

What do you feel are the major differences in basketball supportive culture in College Station as compared to Waco and Austin?

Baylor hasn't made the tournament every year. Since and Including making it in 2008 they've made it 6 out of 9 years so that's 2/3 of the time. That would be on par with everyone's goals here.

Texas has had a good basketball program for a long time, so what's the point of even comparing our program to theirs? Historically they're at least one whole level up from us. Probably several.

Hop said:

---

DogCompany74 said:

---

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.

---

Billy Kennedy isn't the soles reason you aren't going to the NCAA's every year. Texas A&M and Texas A&M former students are the reasons why A&M isn't going to the NCAA's every year. If Texas A&M is a desirable destination for basketball coaches, then the good ones wouldn't leave after three years.

A&M basketball fans saying A&M deserves to make it to the NCAA's every year is like a Kansas football fan justifying the expectation that Kansas should make a BCS bowl every 3-4 years based on Mark Mangino getting them to the Orange Bowl in 2008.

A&M needs to upgrade everything before expectations of going to the NCAA's every year are realistic ...support, program revenue, marketing, coaching, greater interest from students, etc.

---

Argumentum ad absurdum

There are 64 FBS teams vying for 6 BCS bowl spots. There are 64 power conference teams vying for ~40 NCAA tournament spots.

The 2-deep for a football team is 44 players (with kickers). The 2-deep for a basketball team is 6-8 players

But but but Baylor and Texas are selling out every game!


Don't bother arguing with Hop in regards to fan support -- multiple users have posted the data over and over again and he just ignores it and abandons the thread, only to bring it up again 6 months later.

We get it Hop, you wish there was more fan support. But that ain't why we're not winning.

GE said:

---

Tribe2013 said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

I think the 'wheels fall off' partly because teams start to get more tape on you and the scouting improves. Tbe opponents see what other did successfully vs you (or not) and start to adjust and then if you don't adjust or have a decent response back then bye bye.

---

Which is evened out by you having film on that other team also

---

Not necessarily. Some teams have a fatal flaw that once exposed they just don't have the personnel to cover up. Other teams may have more options so if you start scheming to take away their inside game they start running more stuff on the perimeter or slashing with their guards.

---

He didn't say anything about the skill to implement those identified flaws, all he said was "the wheels fall off because other teams get to see our film." A&M has the exact same amount of opportunity to find other teams' fatal flaws.