JJxvi said:

---

Hop said:

---

free_mhayden said:

---

I shall dub this "Hoplogic":


"If this, this and this hadn't happened for Coach X, then he wouldn't have done well."

"If this, this and this had happened for Coach Y, then he would have done well."

"Therefore: Coach X = Coach Y"

---

I know it's tough for you, but stick to the topic here. If he goes to 1 NCAA in six years, is that not an automatic red flag for any Power 5 coach?

If he builds on this season and molds next year's No. 50 class and the returning veterans into another NCAA team and 2018 recruiting has an uptick from this season, then I'll say he has turned the program around and did a good job doing it.

You have been consistently beating the drum on 1 in 5 for several years. I assumed that applies to all coaches and all situations.

---

It certainly would be odd if someone had been "beating the drum on 1 in 5 for several years" since it only became "1 in 5" last March.

---

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?

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.

zooguy96 said:

---

Frank Martin made South Carolina much better. He walked into a situation where they were the absolute scum of the SEC, and has them in the final four. He has a career .626 winning percentage.

Under Billy Kennedy, A&M has regressed. He walked into a situation where A&M had been in the tournment 6 straight years (making the 2nd round every year) and promptly went 14-18,18-16, and 18-15. He got lucky with 2 transfers (House and Jones) to his credit and had one good season. He has a career .553 when winning percentage.

Quit acting like these are 2 similar situations. Martin is WAY superior to BK. But, don't let the facts get in the way of this silliness.

---

Yeah, I'm overwhelmed with your "facts"..."He got lucky with 2 transfers (House and Jones) to his credit and had one good season." Thanks for setting me straight with those "facts".

Again, all I'm asking is a simple question. If Martin misses the NCAA's next season, do you think he deserves criticism for going to the dance once in six seasons?

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

Hop said:

---

I know it's tough for you, but stick to the topic here. If he goes to 1 NCAA in six years, is that not an automatic red flag for any Power 5 coach?

If he builds on this season and molds next year's No. 50 class and the returning veterans into another NCAA team and 2018 recruiting has an uptick from this season, then I'll say he has turned the program around and did a good job doing it.

You have been consistently beating the drum on 1 in 5 for several years. I assumed that applies to all coaches and all situations.

---

Does Brandon realize he's paying you to troll his boards? Or do you honestly believe that Martin's awesome five years at KSU shouldn't buy him any "he knows what he's doing" leeway? And Huggins didn't "build that program" as you keep repeating; Huggins was in Manhattan for 1 year, Martin was there for 5. Not even Charlie Strong fanboys would take credit for that.

Here's reality, Hop: In 10 years, Martin has made the tournament 5x. He's made the Elite 8 twice and the Final 4 once. He has not merely made 1 tournament in 5 years. In addition, you have made no acknowledgement of the situation that he inherited at South Carolina. Specifically:

• That program has ZERO history. Quantifying that, prior to this year, they hadn't won a tournament game in about 5 decades.
• In the 3 years prior to his arrival, in SEC play USC finished 6-10 in year 1, 5-11 in year 2, and then bottomed out at 2-14 in year 3 right before he arrived. That is absolutely horrific. It's as roaring as a dumpster fire can get without adding fissionable plutonium. Elston Turner, a D-league/Euro league-caliber player just ****ing around and jacking up shots, with no offensive system, was able to drag us to a 7-11 record.

So in summary, Martin walked into an uphill battle that was so steep it would be more accurate to call it an up-cliff battle. He had no talent, no recruiting panache, no history, nothing. Just his wits and his skill. Their RPI, Kenpom, and visible skill increased every single year, and now they're in the Final Four. That's ****ing amazing.

Stop pretending his performance is analogous to Kennedy's. It's not even slightly so. Even Billy Kennedy himself would say the same.

---

Wait, wait.... you think Bob HUggins had no impact on the KSU program and it was Martin that built it?


In the 11 months that Huggins was there, he signed three 5-stars and two 4-stars. He also signed Jacob Pullen and Fred Brown who were starters. In that 2006-2007 recruiting class, Huggins signed two 5-stars and a 4-star in the fall, Martin signed three 3-stars in the spring. In Martin's first year, players that signed under Huggins accounted for 88% of the team's scoring. Martin's signees accounted for 9% of scoring production.

Michael Beasley and Bill Walker put KSU in the map.

Come on...suggesting that Huggins had little impact on the KSU program in his one year there is uninformed.

Blue Duck said:

---

If you had 2 teams with 10 identical players on them, one coached by our man and the other coached by Frank Martin who wins?

Martin's teams hang their hat on defense, what is Billy Kennedy's best attribute as a coach?

---

I'm not arguing that proposition. Do y'all not read my posts? I've posted hundreds of times now that I think the timing is right to make a coaching change now.

I want to know if Martin deserves criticism for going to 1 NCAA in six years if his team (that loses its two dominant players and possibly three) regresses and misses the tournament next year? It's a simple question.

_lefraud_ said:

---

Hop said:

---

zooguy96 said:

---

Frank Martin made South Carolina much better. He walked into a situation where they were the absolute scum of the SEC, and has them in the final four. He has a career .626 winning percentage.

Under Billy Kennedy, A&M has regressed. He walked into a situation where A&M had been in the tournment 6 straight years (making the 2nd round every year) and promptly went 14-18,18-16, and 18-15. He got lucky with 2 transfers (House and Jones) to his credit and had one good season. He has a career .553 when winning percentage.

Quit acting like these are 2 similar situations. Martin is WAY superior to BK. But, don't let the facts get in the way of this silliness.

---

Yeah, I'm overwhelmed with your "facts"..."He got lucky with 2 transfers (House and Jones) to his credit and had one good season." Thanks for setting me straight with those "facts".

Again, all I'm asking is a simple question. If Martin misses the NCAA's next season, do you think he deserves criticism for going to the dance once in six seasons?

---

No!!! He has achieved making the FINAL FOUR at F****** SOUTH CAROLINA. Do you have any clue how incredible that feat is?

---

Yes I do. I have repeatedly said I'm impressed with the job he's done this season. So you are saying that an absolute "1-in-6" argument is really not that absolute?