JJxvi said:
Hop said:
Thanks for your insight. It was 0-in-4 the year before. 0-3 the year before that and 0-2 the year before that. The same sentiment has been loud and constant over and over and over.
So now back to the topic discussion which some of you keep derailing. In previous discussions, y'all were pretty adamant that 1 in 5 for any coach under any circumstance is a red flag. So, if Martin regresses next year if Dozier leaves along w Notice and Thornwell, will he fall under your rule if he's 1-in-6?
I'm not going to speak for someone else, but I don't have "rules" like that. South Carolina in 2012 was a program where 1 in 5 was acceptable. Texas A&M in 2004 was a program where 1 in 5 was acceptable. We'd be talking about Kennedy like he was God's gift to basketball if 2011-2017 results came on the heels of 2003-04. Every circumstance is different and the more information you have the better conclusions you can draw. Billy Kennedy and Frank Martin are not comparable. Maybe their tenures at A&M and South Carolina have superficial similarities, but its a laughable comparison to make with regard to overall coaching quality. Completely ignoring Frank Martin's tenure at Kansas State (which is a better comp for the Texas A&M program we want to be, expecting to be competitive tournament contender every year as was accomplished by the previous regimes) is foolish. Billy Kennedy is a much more uncertain commodity because he does not have that Texas A&M-esque experience except for his disappointing tenure at A&M while Martin does.
First of all, I have made no mention whatsoever of Kennedy's coaching ability or how he compares to Martin in this thread. I have made it very clear that Martin has done a great job with this team. So once again, y'all lose your mind because you think there is some phantom conversation that I'm somehow saying Kennedy is better than Martin. The issue is this community and practicing what you preach. When discussing a coach you dislike for years, you make absolute statements like "any coach that can only go to 1 NCAA in 3,4,5,6 years should be fired." Then when A&M had a big season and went to the Sweet 16, the response was "the coach can only do it with a bunch of veteran seniors then he'll go another 2-3 years without an NCAA. A good coach doesn't rebuild every 2-3 years. A good coach reloads." Then the team actually does take a step back and it's repeated many times a day on this board "1-in-6 is unacceptable under any circumstance."
So I'm just asking does that apply to all college coaches? South Carolina loses two of its best players who are senior starters. Their 6th/7th man is a senior. If Dozier goes pro which has been speculated, that means USCe loses its three best players and chances are realistic this program takes a step back and that means possibly 1-in-6. If Martin hangs on to Dozier and whips his guys into another NCAA team, it's a moot point. It will be an impressive feat. But what if he goes 18-14 and has gone to the NCAA 1-in-6 years? That's my simple question to those that have been pounding that absolute "1-in-5(now 6)" mantra for months and months here.
I will use a past Kennedy debate point to prove my point. That doesn't mean I'm defending the guy's record at A&M. I'm talking about the argument. I've brought up numerous times that Kennedy had a big coaching accomplishment at SE Louisiana taking that program from a single digit win team to its first and only NCAA berth in school history. I actually did receive responses saying he went to one NCAA in five years and that wasn't a big deal, even at SE Louisiana.
So context and type of program is not relevant there, but y'all are using the exact same argument why it's OK that Martin took five years to make the NCAA. Where's the consistency in your arguments?
So if the downtrodden SE Louisiana program doesn't alter the context of the "1-in-5" debate in some eyes here, then why does a P5 South Carolina program give Martin cover for the "1-in-6"? Again, I think Martin has done a good job this year. My argument isn't with him as a coach. It's with this constant "1-in-5" hammer that is persistent on this board, but inconsistently applied.