In your mind, what are acceptable results for basketball

6,847 Views | 125 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by Yell Practice
mhayden
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hop • 12:37p, 2/20/17
Hop said:
TXAggie2011 said:
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.


That wasn't my point. This program will not have year-in, year-out consistent success until the program is more attractive for successful coaches to stay and make this a career destination as opposed to a step on the ladder on the way to the top.

Again, wrong.

This program had year-in, year-out consistent success from 2004-2011.
Reply Quote
mhayden
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hop • 12:44p, 2/20/17
Hop said:
free_mhayden said:
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.


That's not my point. The only relevant data is right in front of you. You had a native Texan put a figurative "for sale" sign in his yard after year 3...he was looking at the first opportunity to get out. We talk about UK and that nobody turns down Big Blue. But he was set to take the Arkansas job before BB showed interest.

Then you had Turgeon who openly complained about the lack of exposure, marketing, support, etc. before he bailed after year 4.

I'm not talking just fans in the stands. I'm talking about everything from the way the AD's office approaches basketball to marketing, academic support, and fan support is just one element.

The proof is in the pudding. A&M has had two successful coaches in the past 25 years and they both left at the first opportunity to get out of town. What more data do you need than that Hayden?

We had a coach leave us for Kentucky and for Maryland.

If you think that is going to change because we put a lot of fans in the stands or the AD's office hangs a few more advertisements then you are going to be disappointed, cause it ain't.

Could the AD's office do more for the hoops program? Absolutely... But the reason they have failed us isn't marketing, academic support and fans in the stands -- they failed us by hiring a bad coach and giving him a stupid contract.

Would we all prefer a great coach that views A&M as a destination job? Absolutely... But those don't come around often. You can dress up Aggie Basketball all you'd like, but at the end of the day it's still college basketball in the South... To use your poor earlier example -- it'd be like Kansas football fans having a successful season and thinking that Alabama or Texas or USC won't be able to poach their coach because the students are really turning out in droves.

We've got a bad coach because we signed a bad coach to a bad contract. That's the reason. Not marketing, not fan support, none of that. Bad coach, bad contract, bad results.
Reply Quote
bobinator
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:44p, 2/20/17
AG
No we're calling losing two coaches "consistent success"?
Reply Quote
bobinator
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:52p, 2/20/17
AG
This thread has undergone a good example of the Hayden effect. It's where it's starts with a discussion about a general topic and then swerves into something specific that has nothing to do with that original topic.

Hops point was, I assume, that to get to a point where we can expect to be in the tournament every season, which more than one person on this thread have said that's something they expect, there are a lot of other things that have to happen from a program standpoint. And very few things in our history show that we're willing or capable of doing that.

We made it six years in a row, but we lost both coaches that got us there.

What Hop is saying is if we're going to be able to keep a coach who sustains that type of success, our whole program is going to have to be better. Otherwise the next good coach we have is going to leave us just like the others. Thus we aren't able to meet the expectations everyone here seems to have, which then makes them unreasonable expectations.
Reply Quote
BQ_90
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bobinator • 12:57p, 2/20/17
AG
Well the difference now is we have the ability to pay more for a coach than in years past.

Money was an issue with the previous two coaches, now we can at least get into a bidding war, in the past we couldn't.

Now that still doesn't keep a coach

But if we are going to be a stepping stone program then don't give out stupid contracts that put those stone around you neck then jump the lake
Reply Quote
Hop
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to mhayden • 1:30p, 2/20/17
Staff
AG
free_mhayden said:
Hop said:
TXAggie2011 said:
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.


That wasn't my point. This program will not have year-in, year-out consistent success until the program is more attractive for successful coaches to stay and make this a career destination as opposed to a step on the ladder on the way to the top.

Again, wrong.

This program had year-in, year-out consistent success from 2004-2011.
And both successful coaches left and now you are experiencing a 14-12 season. You are complaining about the current coach who was hired because the last two quickly bolted Texas A&M...yet, you say I'm wrong. Um, OK. If you are forced to go hire a mid-major coach every time your successful coach leaves, the odds are heavily stacked that eventually you'll be complaining about the current coach and still arguing that A&M is capable of constant success.

It worked for Miami football for a decade or so, but eventually you will not get lucky with the ext up-and-comer coach...which is why Miami is an average football program now.
Reply Quote Next Staff
Hop
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ_90 • 1:43p, 2/20/17
Staff
AG
BQ_90 said:
Well the difference now is we have the ability to pay more for a coach than in years past.

Money was an issue with the previous two coaches, now we can at least get into a bidding war, in the past we couldn't.

Now that still doesn't keep a coach

But if we are going to be a stepping stone program then don't give out stupid contracts that put those stone around you neck then jump the lake

I keep hearing about all this extra money to do so many things in athletics to gain a competitive advantage against our SEC peers...but our SEC peers are getting the same bump in revenues as well. It's a zero-sum game for the most part...especially the power schools like LSU, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, etc.

I saw someone on this thread matter-of-factly say that A&M should always finish in the Top 3 in the SEC. OK, we already have UK and Florida that's usually 1 and 2. So A&M has a clear competitive advantage over LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss, MSU, Auburn, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, Missouri, Vandy, and Georgia.

You don't think people at Georgia, Alabama, and LSU aren't saying they should be a perennial top 3 program? Yes, that is the goal that A&M and all teams should strive for, but to matter-of-factly say A&M deserves to be the in the top 3, based on history and resources I'm not sure where that's coming from.

For A&M to truly have a competitive advantage over 85% of the SEC in basketball, a lot of things need to be enhanced and improved....first being committed to success in basketball and not just hollow lip service from a football school.
Reply Quote Next Staff
Pumpkinhead
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hop • 1:47p, 2/20/17
AG
Hop said:
BQ_90 said:
Well the difference now is we have the ability to pay more for a coach than in years past.

Money was an issue with the previous two coaches, now we can at least get into a bidding war, in the past we couldn't.

Now that still doesn't keep a coach

But if we are going to be a stepping stone program then don't give out stupid contracts that put those stone around you neck then jump the lake

I keep hearing about all this extra money to do so many things in athletics to gain a competitive advantage against our SEC peers...but our SEC peers are getting the same bump in revenues as well. It's a zero-sum game for the most part...especially the power schools like LSU, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, etc.

I saw someone on this thread matter-of-factly say that A&M should always finish in the Top 3 in the SEC. OK, we already have UK and Florida that's usually 1 and 2. So A&M has a clear competitive advantage over LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss, MSU, Auburn, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, Missouri, Vandy, and Georgia.

You don't think people at Georgia, Alabama, and LSU aren't saying they should be a perennial top 3 program? Yes, that is the goal that A&M and all teams should strive for, but to matter-of-factly say A&M deserves to be the in the top 3, based on history and resources I'm not sure where that's coming from.

For A&M to truly have a competitive advantage over 85% of the SEC in basketball, a lot of things need to be enhanced and improved....first being committed to success in basketball and not just hollow lip service from a football school.
My point earlier in this thread was that it would be nice if finishing like...oh...say 6th in the SEC still was good enough to usually get you in the NCAAT.
Reply Quote
mhayden
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bobinator • 1:52p, 2/20/17
bobinator said:
No we're calling losing two coaches "consistent success"?

I'm not sure in what world having a tournament team from 2004-2011 under two different coaches is not "consistent success"?
Reply Quote
TombstoneTex
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:53p, 2/20/17
AG
Y'all have high standards for acceptable results! NCAA tournament once every 3 or 4 years should be the expectation. We're never going to be Kentucky.
Reply Quote
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hop • 1:58p, 2/20/17
AG
Hop said:
TXAggie2011 said:
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.


That wasn't my point. This program will not have year-in, year-out consistent success until the program is more attractive for successful coaches to stay and make this a career destination as opposed to a step on the ladder on the way to the top.


You conflated issues originally, you're conflating them again.

I acknowledged and said as much about the desirability of retaining versus having to get it right consecutively.

But it doesn't change the point to which you were pushing back against and what I'm trying to reassert: coaches have the tools to succeed here.

You responded to someone who said a good coach can succeed here by diverting blame away from Kennedy for Kennedy's failure to succeed. That's what I'm pushing back against.

A good coach can win here. They have. Multiple times.

Obviously we have to hire a good coach and we can't retain bad coaches.
Reply Quote
3 edits
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:05p, 2/20/17
AG
I also think you're overplaying Turgeon (and BCG's) desire to get out. Turgeon would have left before the Maryland job opened if he wanted to jump ship at the first chance.
Reply Quote
mhayden
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hop • 2:06p, 2/20/17
Hop said:
free_mhayden said:
Hop said:
TXAggie2011 said:
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.


That wasn't my point. This program will not have year-in, year-out consistent success until the program is more attractive for successful coaches to stay and make this a career destination as opposed to a step on the ladder on the way to the top.

Again, wrong.

This program had year-in, year-out consistent success from 2004-2011.
And both successful coaches left and now you are experiencing a 14-12 season. You are complaining about the current coach who was hired because the last two quickly bolted Texas A&M...yet, you say I'm wrong. Um, OK. If you are forced to go hire a mid-major coach every time your successful coach leaves, the odds are heavily stacked that eventually you'll be complaining about the current coach and still arguing that A&M is capable of constant success.

It worked for Miami football for a decade or so, but eventually you will not get lucky with the ext up-and-comer coach...which is why Miami is an average football program now.

Which is the nature of the beast when you're a basketball team in football country. You can wish all you want that some up-and-comer with no ties to A&M is going to come here and make us a perennial tournament team and ignore offers from other schools and take whatever modest salary we offer him, but it's not going to happen. Florida Gators were willing to give Billy Donovan anything he wanted and he still left for something "better".

That doesn't mean you settle on mediocre and just start blaming the fanbase though. Baylor has managed to keep a good coach. Texas kept one until they ran him off. Neither of those fanbases are any better than ours -- both arguably worse.

Gillispie wasn't going to stay if an extra 1000 people were in the stands each night. Neither was Turgeon. Both were looking to go to schools where basketball was more revered.

The main problem isn't the athletic department not supporting the basketball program enough -- the main problem is the athletic department making a bad hire and then compounding it with an asinine contract.
Reply Quote
mhayden
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TombstoneTex • 2:07p, 2/20/17
RThorp said:
Y'all have high standards for acceptable results! NCAA tournament once every 3 or 4 years should be the expectation. We're never going to be Kentucky.

Can we at least try and be Texas or Baylor?
Reply Quote
BQ_90
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hop • 2:22p, 2/20/17
AG
Hop said:
BQ_90 said:
MWell the difference now is we have the ability to pay more for a coach than in years past.

Money was an issue with the previous two coaches, now we can at least get into a bidding war, in the past we couldn't.

Now that still doesn't keep a coach

But if we are going to be a stepping stone program then don't give out stupid contracts that put those stone around you neck then jump the lake

I keep hearing about all this extra money to do so many things in athletics to gain a competitive advantage against our SEC peers...but our SEC peers are getting the same bump in revenues as well. It's a zero-sum game for the most part...especially the power schools like LSU, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, etc.

I saw someone on this thread matter-of-factly say that A&M should always finish in the Top 3 in the SEC. OK, we already have UK and Florida that's usually 1 and 2. So A&M has a clear competitive advantage over LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss, MSU, Auburn, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, Missouri, Vandy, and Georgia.

You don't think people at Georgia, Alabama, and LSU aren't saying they should be a perennial top 3 program? Yes, that is the goal that A&M and all teams should strive for, but to matter-of-factly say A&M deserves to be the in the top 3, based on history and resources I'm not sure where that's coming from.

For A&M to truly have a competitive advantage over 85% of the SEC in basketball, a lot of things need to be enhanced and improved....first being committed to success in basketball and not just hollow lip service from a football school.
Then address that person, I never said we should be top anything. But whatever issues we have the other SEC schools have the same issues for the most part. We do have good recrutiing grounds but not sure that matters all that much since most players are leaving Texas in the first place.

so what needs to change? Let's see the list.

But being a football school did play a factor when some where saying we should have paid the MBB more than the football coach, which we all knew wasn't or probable will not ever happen at A&M.

But I think the first step should be not giving a crazy buyout contract to a guy that nobody wants, right?
Reply Quote
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:31p, 2/20/17
AG
As far as institutional resources, with the exception of brain power in the athletic department, there's not a SEC team that has more and from resource to resource, I'm sure many have less.

Geography probably matters less in basketball than in many sports, but it doesn't hurt and certainly can be helpful. I don't think there is a coincidence that Florida broke through as a SEC power given their location.

We do have less appealing beaches in Texas.
Reply Quote
TangoMike
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TombstoneTex • 3:18p, 2/20/17
RThorp said:
Y'all have high standards for acceptable results! NCAA tournament once every 3 or 4 years should be the expectation. We're never going to be Kentucky.


It's not hard to make the tournament. This is a terribly low bar. Like low-major expectation level bad
Reply Quote
CapCityAg89
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:48p, 2/20/17
AG
How about this? Let's take the emotion out of it and find comparable programs and see what they've done. A&M is historically 1373-1229 (.528) and has made the tournament seven times in the last 20 years; is "primarily" a football school, but has good to great resources and OK support.

In the PAC, I picked USC and UW. USC is 1,5001,097 (.578) overall, so slightly better. As is UW at 17051112 (.605). Like A&M, USC has made the tournament seven times in the last 20 years; UW has as well.

In the BIG, I'll go with Ohio State and Iowa. OSU is 1,6081,037 (.608) overall. They've made the tournament 13 times in 20 years including 8 of 12 for current coach Thad Matta. Iowa is 1591-1117 (.588) and has made the tournament 7 of 20 years.

In the ACC, Florida State and Clemson (ACC as a basketball conference is tough to find comparisons). FSU is 1,140832 (.578) and are 5 for the last 20. Clemson is 123612341 (.500) and are 6 for 20.

Those are historically strong football schools where there really shouldn't be any emotion for us (hence I skipped the Big12 and SEC). They're a combined 45 for 120. That's .375 or about 1 tourney every 3 years.
Reply Quote
1
halfastros81
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:23p, 2/20/17
AG
Just in terms of program performance, making the NCAA tourney better than 50% of the time is a very reasonable expectation imo. Doing so with no NCAA trouble and very limited trouble with the law also seems reasonable. I think better is possible and I think our previous 2 coaches proved it.

If Aggie basketball isn't doing those things the program is not successful imo. By those measures BCG and Turgeon met and somewhat exceeded those expectations although BCG started from a lot bigger hole. At this stage Coach Kennedy has fallen well short although last yr was a fun run. I had high hopes they could keep things going in the right direction this yr but it didn't take long to recognize the lack of quality guard play was going to set the ceiling pretty low. Caldwell would have made a significant difference imo but that situation ultimately is on the HC as is lack of quality depth .

If you make the tourney at least 5 out of 10 yrs then advancing to the Sweet 16 or better once a decade also seems to be a realistic expectation imo.
Reply Quote
ecoag80
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:35p, 2/20/17
AG
If either BCG or Turgeon had received a raise, a five year extension with a favorable buy-out after making the tournament, would they have left for Arkansas, Kentucky and Maryland?
Reply Quote
CapCityAg89
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ecoag80 • 8:21p, 2/20/17
AG
ecoag80 said:
If either BCG or Turgeon had received a raise, a five year extension with a favorable buy-out after making the tournament, would they have left for Arkansas, Kentucky and Maryland?

Yes. All of the above.
Reply Quote
TombstoneTex
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TangoMike • 8:45p, 2/20/17
AG
Tribe2013 said:
RThorp said:
Y'all have high standards for acceptable results! NCAA tournament once every 3 or 4 years should be the expectation. We're never going to be Kentucky.


It's not hard to make the tournament. This is a terribly low bar. Like low-major expectation level bad


CapCityAg's data seems to suggest otherwise...
Reply Quote
Method Man
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:01p, 2/20/17
His data suggests we should be okay with being ****ing losers. 1 in 3 or 4 years? Good God man. Why bother watching? Oh, wait. We have made 1 in 6?
Reply Quote
1
Hop
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 9:32p, 2/20/17
Staff
AG
TXAggie2011 said:
Hop said:
TXAggie2011 said:
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.


That wasn't my point. This program will not have year-in, year-out consistent success until the program is more attractive for successful coaches to stay and make this a career destination as opposed to a step on the ladder on the way to the top.


You conflated issues originally, you're conflating them again.

I acknowledged and said as much about the desirability of retaining versus having to get it right consecutively.

But it doesn't change the point to which you were pushing back against and what I'm trying to reassert: coaches have the tools to succeed here.

You responded to someone who said a good coach can succeed here by diverting blame away from Kennedy for Kennedy's failure to succeed. That's what I'm pushing back against.

A good coach can win here. They have. Multiple times.

Obviously we have to hire a good coach and we can't retain bad coaches.

You continue to miss the point. this isn't about Kennedy. Kennedy has nothing to do with this discussion, so why do you try to inject him into this interaction and claim to be pushing back on something that wasn't part of the discussion? If Texas A&M had its act together in basketball, Billy Kennedy would have never been the coach at Texas A&M in the first place.

This is about the claim that a coach can win at Texas A&M. Yeah, he can win as posters have said....and then he uses his "great job of winning at a football school like A&M" and leaves immediately for a basketball school. And when you are a program that is a stepping stone, the law of averages dictates that numerous coaching changes will eventually land you with a dud. Unless something changes, or the next future great college coach is an Aggie grad, A&M will never hire a Bill Self, Coach K, Jim Boeheim, Roy Williams, Sean Miller, Coach K, etc. Until the equation changes, A&M will be a stepping stone job. That doesn't mean A&M can't win occasionally, but this "A&M should be in the NCAA's and in the SEC's top 3 every year." Again, what is it about A&M's history and resources that sets it above the average power 5 basketball program?
Reply Quote Next Staff
Ragoo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hop • 10:47p, 2/20/17
AG
History is irrelevant if you have money. I firmly believe if Turgeon had stuck around for the SEC we would have been able to pay him whatever he wanted and he would not be at Maryland.
Reply Quote
Method Man
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ragoo • 10:51p, 2/20/17
Ragoo said:
History is irrelevant if you have money. I firmly believe if Turgeon had stuck around for the SEC we would have been able to pay him whatever he wanted and he would not be at Maryland.


Despite what people think I believe this is possible. He met with Bill Byrne before he took Maryland job and thought hard about it. If he was a shmoozer like BK he probably would've been given whatever he wanted.
Reply Quote
1
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hop • 12:14a, 2/21/17
AG
It's not about Kennedy, you blithering dolt. In fact, the post that started this wasn't actually about Billy Kennedy either even though it mentioned his name.

It's about whoever the coach is having the tools to succeed. Every coach who coaches at A&M has the tools to succeed. That applies to all coaches and has nothing to do with any singular coach.

You can stop lecturing me on the difficulty of getting hires right consecutively. If you'd take a breath and read my very first post, you'll see I said just as much. And then I repeated myself.

And you'll see I didn't say anything about Billy Kennedy.

You're half as insightful and twice as insulting as you think yourself to be.
Reply Quote
2
5 edits
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:36a, 2/21/17
AG
Quote:
omething that wasn't part of the discussion? If Texas A&M had its act together in basketball, ***** ******* would have never been the coach at Texas A&M in the first place.


You're continuing to confuse two different things---two different areas of expectation---here. If whoever is the coach doesn't win, they didn't capitalize on the resources they were given. They don't deserve and shouldn't get a artificially long leash because "they shouldn't be here in the first place." That's "managing expectations" at its purest and something A&M has to grow out of if they aspire to improve and win championships.

That's really all everyone you've been arguing has been saying.

That shouldn't even conflict with the notion we need to do better keeping good coaches, however you do a "better job.". They really just don't have a whole lot do with each other once you admit the resources are here for a coach to succeed.
Reply Quote
1 edit
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:39a, 2/21/17
AG
But never pass up a chance to take a shot at Aggie fans, eh?
Reply Quote
TangoMike
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TombstoneTex • 5:40a, 2/21/17
RThorp said:
Tribe2013 said:
RThorp said:
Y'all have high standards for acceptable results! NCAA tournament once every 3 or 4 years should be the expectation. We're never going to be Kentucky.


It's not hard to make the tournament. This is a terribly low bar. Like low-major expectation level bad


CapCityAg's data seems to suggest otherwise...


CapCity took all time win percentage and applied it to NCAA appearances in the last 20 years. That's a ****ing stupid way to sort data. Before 2004, A&M had like 16 wins and 1 NCAA appearance.
Reply Quote
mhayden
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:24a, 2/21/17
I've posted the data multiple times regarding major conference teams and how often they make the NCAA Tournament... It's the football equivalent of around an 8-4 season.

Many of us are basically saying that over a 3-year term we think 8-4, 8-4 and 7-5 is acceptable.

Amazingly, some think that's not a level A&M could/should be at.
Reply Quote
1
CapCityAg89
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TangoMike • 9:56a, 2/21/17
AG
Tribe2013 said:
RThorp said:
Tribe2013 said:
RThorp said:
Y'all have high standards for acceptable results! NCAA tournament once every 3 or 4 years should be the expectation. We're never going to be Kentucky.


It's not hard to make the tournament. This is a terribly low bar. Like low-major expectation level bad


CapCityAg's data seems to suggest otherwise...


CapCity took all time win percentage and applied it to NCAA appearances in the last 20 years. That's a ****ing stupid way to sort data. Before 2004, A&M had like 16 wins and 1 NCAA appearance.

If you read the post - the historical win numbers were just for perspective. What I did was take comparable Universities and took a look at what their NCAA tournament appearance rate was for the last 20 years.

Stupid is glancing at a post, not being able to understandsnd it and so calling names. OK, not necessarily stupid, just childish.
Reply Quote
TangoMike
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CapCityAg89 • 11:03a, 2/21/17
CapCityAg89 said:
Tribe2013 said:
RThorp said:
Tribe2013 said:
RThorp said:
Y'all have high standards for acceptable results! NCAA tournament once every 3 or 4 years should be the expectation. We're never going to be Kentucky.


It's not hard to make the tournament. This is a terribly low bar. Like low-major expectation level bad


CapCityAg's data seems to suggest otherwise...


CapCity took all time win percentage and applied it to NCAA appearances in the last 20 years. That's a ****ing stupid way to sort data. Before 2004, A&M had like 16 wins and 1 NCAA appearance.

If you read the post - the historical win numbers were just for perspective. What I did was take comparable Universities and took a look at what their NCAA tournament appearance rate was for the last 20 years.

Stupid is glancing at a post, not being able to understandsnd it and so calling names. OK, not necessarily stupid, just childish.
I didn't call you anything. I said your method was stupid, because it is.

A&M's historical win percentage pre-2004 is completely irrelevant. Pre-2004, A&M gave absolutely zero ****s about the basketball program. I understood completely what you wrote, it's just a silly metric, especially when you compare it to places like Ohio State that have multiple Final Fours in the past 20 years
Reply Quote
Hop
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 11:17a, 2/21/17
Staff
AG
TXAggie2011 said:
It's not about Kennedy, you blithering dolt. In fact, the post that started this wasn't actually about Billy Kennedy either even though it mentioned his name.

It's about whoever the coach is having the tools to succeed. Every coach who coaches at A&M has the tools to succeed. That applies to all coaches and has nothing to do with any singular coach.

You can stop lecturing me on the difficulty of getting hires right consecutively. If you'd take a breath and read my very first post, you'll see I said just as much. And then I repeated myself.

And you'll see I didn't say anything about Billy Kennedy.

You're half as insightful and twice as insulting as you think yourself to be.


Childish comments aside, I responded to your 1:58 PM post from yesterday when you said I was diverting blame from Kennedy and you said you were specifically pushing back on that point....so yes, you accused me of defending Kennedy which was both irrelevant to the discussion and inaccurate.

You posted this...

"You responded to someone who said a good coach can succeed here by diverting blame away from Kennedy for Kennedy's failure to succeed. That's what I'm pushing back against."

Are you OK?



Reply Quote Next Staff
1 edit
hoya-ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:43a, 2/21/17
AG
I posted this in another thread recently, but A&M learned the wrong lesson from BCG and Turg, and that is why we got Kennedy, who was never going to leave because he isn't good enough for anyone to come calling. We have the resources to consistently compete, which doesn't mean that we always will. We need to hire coaches that will use A&M as a stepping stone and have a short leash if they can't. 3-4 years and you have success and you will get a bigger job at a basketball school. If you don't, you are gone and on to the next up and comer. Maybe we get lucky and someone decides to stick around.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.