No you haven't repeatedly done that. You've once or twice given a qualified, back handed compliment when being pressed on the issue.
If Frank Martin can take lowly South Carolina to the Final Four
8,115 Views |
117 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by TXAggie2011
A final four is an absolute accomplishment that A&M will probably never achieve and USCe hasn't done anything in forever so their 1/6 (which hasn't happened yet) probably is a little better than ours.
Also, Martin could recruit better here.
Also, Martin could recruit better here.
Hop
Joined:
Oct 10, 1999
Posts:
67,337
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
TXAggie2011 said:
If you wanted to "practice what you preach", you wouldn't bring up SE Louisiana because it's "not relevant to what Kennedy has done at A&M." Stop acting like you're the epitome of fairness and morality.
It was actually 1 for 6, by the way.
I don't think anyone really cares much about what he did or didn't do at SE Louisiana. Johnny Jones took UNT to heights it had never achieved. You don't have to be much of a good coach to make history in a weak conference at a school with no history.
You receive most of the push back there because it comes alongside 1 for 5 at Murray State and now 1 for 6 at A&M. There is a pattern and a multi-decade career of not making the NCAA much.
You have a hard time taking and keeping comments in context.
OK, then we will evaluate Martin on his record at South Carolina.
South Carolina should build a statue of Martin even if they lose every single game next year. He's done enough to give them hope. We've all had the hope sucked right out of us by our coach and his ineptitude, that's the difference. A Final Four is an incredible accomplishment for a school with no history.
Hop
Joined:
Oct 10, 1999
Posts:
67,337
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
Method Man said:
A final four is an absolute accomplishment that A&M will probably never achieve and USCe hasn't done anything in forever so their 1/6 (which hasn't happened yet) probably is a little better than ours.
Also, Martin could recruit better here.
I'm not asking for a comparison. It's a simple question, does Martin deserve any criticism if his team (with several big losses expected) regresses and misses the NCAA;s for the fifth time in six years?
At schools like a&m, South Carolina and kstate, a coach could go 1/10, as long as the 1 is a final four appearance I'd be pretty content.
What if I told you that a&m has more sweet 16 appearances than kstate in the past 30 years? What if I told you that the one sweet 16 season in those 30 years belonged to Frank Martin? I tell you this because a coach like Frank Martin has bought himself some slack, especially when he's at a place like South Carolina and what that program was before he arrived.
What if I told you that a&m has more sweet 16 appearances than kstate in the past 30 years? What if I told you that the one sweet 16 season in those 30 years belonged to Frank Martin? I tell you this because a coach like Frank Martin has bought himself some slack, especially when he's at a place like South Carolina and what that program was before he arrived.
Frank Martin? You must mean Bob Huggins._lefraud_ said:
At schools like a&m, South Carolina and kstate, a coach could go 1/10, as long as the 1 is a final four appearance I'd be pretty content.
What if I told you that a&m has more sweet 16 appearances than kstate in the past 30 years? What if I told you that the one sweet 16 season in those 30 years belonged to Frank Martin? I tell you this because a coach like Frank Martin has bought himself some slack, especially when he's at a place like South Carolina and what that program was before he arrived.
Quote:
It's with this constant "1-in-5" hammer that is persistent on this board, but inconsistently applied.
You're the only one inconsistently applying it by removing any and all context and qualifiers from it.
If a coach takes over a perennial tournament team and makes 1 tournament in 5 years, he should be shown the door. Especially so if his resume prior to taking over that team was highly questionable.
Since that doesn't apply to Frank Martin -- as he took over a downtrodden USC program AND had an impressive schedule prior to taking over that program -- you are the one that is inconsistently applying this "hammer".
As others have mentioned, you dig your heels in so deeply on a point before even taking the time to research it. You admittedly didn't know the NBA draft slot amounts, yet you argued about it over dozens of posts. You admittedly did not know what South Carolina's 2018 recruiting looks like, yet you've argued about whether or not Martin has actually built or is building something at USC.
I'm sure you're expected by your employers to keep your post count up - but maybe try posting a little bit less and using that time to research your points.
By the way, who is responsible for who being on the Kansas State roster aside, can we all agree that it's still no given a talented roster goes out and makes multiple runs in the NCAA tournament?
You still have to coach the team and go actually win games, right?
I feel like there are too many example of coaches failing to win even though they have a lot of natural talent for that be a controversial statement, right?
You still have to coach the team and go actually win games, right?
I feel like there are too many example of coaches failing to win even though they have a lot of natural talent for that be a controversial statement, right?
I'm happy to answer whatever crazy question you like. Coaches will receive criticism in every year, some of it warranted. EVERY coach. EVERY year. Would somebody look like a fool for saying Frank Martin should be fired IF your scenario came to pass? Yes, obviously. So what? What would you like us to draw from that conclusion, that therefore anybody that wants Kennedy fired on this board is as big a fool? Nobody would view it that way. If we fired Kennedy now, the basketball world wouldn't even blink, some media members would mention our roster and how maybe it was a mistake with who we have coming back before going on to talk about who would get the job now. Frank Martin gets fired next year and the basketball media would lose their **** over it. It would be a ****storm of anti-Carolina talk.Hop said:
I'm not asking for a comparison. It's a simple question, does Martin deserve any criticism if his team (with several big losses expected) regresses and misses the NCAA;s for the fifth time in six years?
5 star #1: Jason Bennett (2006): played 1 season under Huggins then transferredHop said:
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.
5 star #2: Michael Beasley (2007): played 1 season under Martin then declared for the NBA
5 star #3: Henry Walker (2007): played 1 season under Martin then declared for the NBA
Hardly the Sloan-Roland-Davis 3 year foundation that Gillispie left for Turgeon.
Look, if you want to say that Huggins set Martin up for a nice first year, great. Everybody agrees. What's ridiculous is that you repeatedly gloss over the following 4 years, in which he made the NIT x1, the round of 32 x2, and the Elite 8 x1.In other words, he was a new coach, trading under his own name, at a backwater school, and he kicked more ass than any coach in the history of our school, and that's true even if you ignore his first year "with Huggins' players." It is absolutely absurd to ignore that success, especially as he did it at a really tough job (a corn belt nowhere school stuck in the Jayhawks' long shadow). If you want more proof that it's a tough job, just look at what Bruce Weber has done since. A 27 win season in year 1 with Martin's players, and then 4 straight mediocre seasons as he took ownership of the team.
It's tough to win at KSU year after year, even if somebody else gets you started on the right foot.
Again, folks have answered this question directly and indirectly countless times.Hop said:Method Man said:
A final four is an absolute accomplishment that A&M will probably never achieve and USCe hasn't done anything in forever so their 1/6 (which hasn't happened yet) probably is a little better than ours.
Also, Martin could recruit better here.
I'm not asking for a comparison. It's a simple question, does Martin deserve any criticism if his team (with several big losses expected) regresses and misses the NCAA;s for the fifth time in six years?
You're not going to realize every answer if you're going to keep putting words in folks' mouth that there is a hard, un-nuanced "1 of 5" or "1 of 6" rule.
It would have been great if South Carolina got got going sooner than year 5---ironically, Ben Diamond said this in the original argument. Is that what you've wanted someone to say?
Hop
Joined:
Oct 10, 1999
Posts:
67,337
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
But it's already been stated several times by multiple posters that a single high water mark season isn't all that relevant when judging a full coaching record, so by that logic the the one sweet 16 season doesn't define his tenure at KSU. He inherited two NBA-caliber Top 10 national 5-star players along with a couple of four-stars (the No. 1 overall recruiting class by Rivals and Scout) and won fewer games than his predecessor who won 23 games with a much, much weaker pool of inherited talent. In fact, other than that one high water mark season, Martin never surpassed that 23-win total of Huggins in the other four years._lefraud_ said:
At schools like a&m, South Carolina and kstate, a coach could go 1/10, as long as the 1 is a final four appearance I'd be pretty content.
What if I told you that a&m has more sweet 16 appearances than kstate in the past 30 years? What if I told you that the one sweet 16 season in those 30 years belonged to Frank Martin? I tell you this because a coach like Frank Martin has bought himself some slack, especially when he's at a place like South Carolina and what that program was before he arrived.
I would like to see you try to make an argument about basketball without referencing how many recruiting stars somebody had as the key fact.
For starters, the high water mark was an Elite Eight in year 3 without those recruits Huggins was involved with...
Hop
Joined:
Oct 10, 1999
Posts:
67,337
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
TXAggie2011 said:Again, folks have answered this question directly and indirectly countless times.Hop said:Method Man said:
A final four is an absolute accomplishment that A&M will probably never achieve and USCe hasn't done anything in forever so their 1/6 (which hasn't happened yet) probably is a little better than ours.
Also, Martin could recruit better here.
I'm not asking for a comparison. It's a simple question, does Martin deserve any criticism if his team (with several big losses expected) regresses and misses the NCAA;s for the fifth time in six years?
You're not going to realize every answer if you're going to keep putting words in folks' mouth that there is a hard, un-nuanced "1 of 5" or "1 of 6" rule.
It would have been great if South Carolina got got going sooner than year 5---ironically, Ben Diamond said this in the original argument. Is that what you've wanted someone to say?
Few people have answered the question asked...they all say they'd rather have Martin as a coach over Kennedy, or that Martin's hypothesized "1-in-6" is not as bad as Kennedy's "1-in-6"? Kennedy aside, is "1-in-6" irrelevant because Martin went to the Final Four? What if he treads water at 22-23 wins for a couple of years? Honest question, how much cover does a coach get for a Final Four and you aren't the coach of a blue blood program that expects Final Fours every year?
And I'm sure we'll have another hypothetical discussion on another thread...how do you judge Kennedy if next year's team wins another 28 games and goes to the Sweet 16? But that will be for another day.
You're right. Martin's teams, which made the Tournament 4 years out of 5, only achieved once that lofty standard set by Huggins' team: the NIT.Hop said:
But it's already been stated several times by multiple posters that a single high water mark season isn't all that relevant, so by that logic the the one sweet 16 season doesn't define his tenure at KSU. He inherited two NBA-caliber Top 10 national 5-star players along with a couple of four-stars (the No. 1 overall recruiting class by Rivals and Scout) and won fewer games than his predecessor who won 23 games with a much, much weaker pool of inherited talent. In fact, other than that one high water mark season, Martin never surpassed that 23-win total of Huggins in the other four years.
This is politician-level duplicity and misdirection, Hop. Win and loss totals are meaningless without considering the quality of the wins and losses. You know that, and yet you're focusing on them anyway to advance your point. That's no bueno.
He crushed it with 29 wins without hose recruits and then tied it in years 4 and 5.Quote:
In fact, other than that one high water mark season, Martin never surpassed that 23-win total of Huggins in the other
And Bob Huggins is a potential Hall of Famer. Lets put that context on the compairson about win totals.
Even Pumpkinhrad who isn't exactly ever excited to send compliments Martin's way came in and said 4 or 5 misses was acceptable if you get a Final Four out of it (at a program with the lack of history like South Carolina).
You're not giving this thread's participants honest consideration or thought.
You're not giving this thread's participants honest consideration or thought.
Assuming that happened, his "1 in 6" would not be as bad as Kennedy's because Kennedy took over a decent team coming off of 6 straight NCAA Tournament appearances. Martin took over the figurative dumpster of the conference (Seriously, go look at his predecessor's records. They were horrific. There's no way to say that Kennedy's situation was just as bad).Hop said:
Few people have answered the question asked...they all say they'd rather have Martin as a coach over Kennedy, or that Martin's hypothesized "1-in-6" is not as bad as Kennedy's "1-in-6"? Kennedy aside, is "1-in-6" irrelevant because Martin went to the Final Four? What if he treads water at 22-23 wins for a couple of years? Honest question, how much cover does a coach get for a Final Four and you aren't the coach of a blue blood program that expects Final Fours every year?
And I'm sure we'll have another hypothetical discussion on another thread...how do you judge Kennedy if next year's team wins another 28 games and goes to the Sweet 16? But that will be for another day.
Since arriving at USC, Martin's teams have improved every single year according to every single metric. Even if he finally shuffles backward next year, there's no doubt that he really knows what he's doing and that his program is on the way up (aided by the fact that he's going to get a HUGE recruiting boost from this FF appearance. Martin is going to be a bonafide coaching rockstar). The stats show that when he coaches, players and the team continually improve.
Kennedy's RPI and Kenpom ratings stayed in the same awful range from years 1-3, which suggests his plan is to shuffle until the stars align. If they don't, he can't even make it onto the NIT bubble (see year 1 with Middleton, or years 2-3 with Turner, or this year with a top 5-10 front court in the country). Teams don't substantively improve unless he shuffles the roster and brings in new guys; if we brought back this team next year, we'd miss the NIT again. THAT is why Martin is a much better coach.
Hop
Joined:
Oct 10, 1999
Posts:
67,337
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
free_mhayden said:Quote:
It's with this constant "1-in-5" hammer that is persistent on this board, but inconsistently applied.
You're the only one inconsistently applying it by removing any and all context and qualifiers from it.
If a coach takes over a perennial tournament team and makes 1 tournament in 5 years, he should be shown the door. Especially so if his resume prior to taking over that team was highly questionable.
Since that doesn't apply to Frank Martin -- as he took over a downtrodden USC program AND had an impressive schedule prior to taking over that program -- you are the one that is inconsistently applying this "hammer".
As others have mentioned, you dig your heels in so deeply on a point before even taking the time to research it. You admittedly didn't know the NBA draft slot amounts, yet you argued about it over dozens of posts. You admittedly did not know what South Carolina's 2018 recruiting looks like, yet you've argued about whether or not Martin has actually built or is building something at USC.
I'm sure you're expected by your employers to keep your post count up - but maybe try posting a little bit less and using that time to research your points.
Amazing...there is clear context to what happened in 2012 at A&M. But you didn't acknowledge the context of that season in your most recent "1-in-5" post when you were lecturing me on not applying context to an argument. But when discussing Martin, context matters. If that's not inconsistently applying context, I don't know what is.
And let me clear something up, y'all completely misinterpreted my statement to the point of negligence. I know what South Carolina has signed for 2017...a bunch of three-stars in a No. 55 class. That class will need to help replace the losses of seniors/Dozier NEXT season which is why I'm saying there's a possibility of next year's team regressing. Of course I don;t know what they are bringing two seasons from now because they don't have anybody committed!!!! The point I was making is that the Final Four season has the opportunity to provide an uptick in 2018 recruiting but I (and nobody including Frank himself) don't know because he hasn't signed anybody two years out!!!!! My lord...
Hop
Joined:
Oct 10, 1999
Posts:
67,337
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
Deputy Travis Junior said:Assuming that happened, his "1 in 6" would not be as bad as Kennedy's because Kennedy took over a decent team coming off of 6 straight NCAA Tournament appearances. Martin took over the figurative dumpster of the conference (Seriously, go look at his predecessor's records. They were horrific. There's no way to say that Kennedy's situation was just as bad).Hop said:
Few people have answered the question asked...they all say they'd rather have Martin as a coach over Kennedy, or that Martin's hypothesized "1-in-6" is not as bad as Kennedy's "1-in-6"? Kennedy aside, is "1-in-6" irrelevant because Martin went to the Final Four? What if he treads water at 22-23 wins for a couple of years? Honest question, how much cover does a coach get for a Final Four and you aren't the coach of a blue blood program that expects Final Fours every year?
And I'm sure we'll have another hypothetical discussion on another thread...how do you judge Kennedy if next year's team wins another 28 games and goes to the Sweet 16? But that will be for another day.
Since arriving at USC, Martin's teams have improved every single year according to every single metric. Even if he finally shuffles backward next year, there's no doubt that he really knows what he's doing and that his program is on the way up (aided by the fact that he's going to get a HUGE recruiting boost from this FF appearance. Martin is going to be a bonafide coaching rockstar). The stats show that when he coaches, players and the team continually improve.
Kennedy's RPI and Kenpom ratings stayed in the same awful range from years 1-3, which suggests his plan is to shuffle until the stars align. If they don't, he can't even make it onto the NIT bubble (see year 1 with Middleton, or years 2-3 with Turner, or this year with a top 5-10 front court in the country). Teams don't substantively improve unless he shuffles the roster and brings in new guys; if we brought back this team next year, we'd miss the NIT again. THAT is why Martin is a much better coach.
Nevermind, y'all are stuck in this Kennedy bubble. How many times can I ask a simple question and clarify that it's not about a comparison to Kennedy...just a judgement of Martin's record if he were to regress next year. So I'll move on...
Hop
Joined:
Oct 10, 1999
Posts:
67,337
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
If you want to add to the discussion thread, that's fine. But the cheap BS will be removed.
Hop
Joined:
Oct 10, 1999
Posts:
67,337
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
Do that a third time and you will won't be able to do it a fourth time.
Yes. Let us remove the BS. Your purpose in this thread is what? It seems abundantly clear to me it's to point out what you think are unfair evaluations of Billy Kennedy.
You've now gone so far to explicitly pull in other threads about Billy Kennedy to make your points, among other things.
Am I wrong?
You've now gone so far to explicitly pull in other threads about Billy Kennedy to make your points, among other things.
Am I wrong?
Hop
Joined:
Oct 10, 1999
Posts:
67,337
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
I think many are so worked up over wanting Kennedy gone that we can't have a good basketball discussion without a myriad of cheap shots at Kennedy that has nothing to do with the discussion. Or in my case, I can make a comment when Kennedy didn't enter my mind, and people are making up a narrative where I'm defending Kennedy. It's like many of you are personally insulted that Kennedy is the coach and will not look at anything objectively with the program until he's gone. And then I get sucked into the back-and-forth of the discussion.TXAggie2011 said:
Yes. Let us remove the BS. Your purpose in this thread is what? It seems abundantly clear to me it's to point out what you think are unfair evaluations of Billy Kennedy.
You've now gone so far to explicitly pull in other threads about Billy Kennedy to make your points, among other things.
Am I wrong?
As I've said numerous times, I would have been fine had A&M made a move this month. I really would. The mismanagement of the point guard position given the talent at other other areas was a huge missed opportunity and something the staff should've seen immediately instead of waiting and hoping Caldwell was released from NCAA jail. So it's not that I am supporting him per se. It's more about the obsession of this community to take cheap shot after cheap shot and turning every thread into a comedy platform of Kennedy jokes. It's annoying...as much as you think I'm annoying for pushing back.
What's annoying and a comedy show is complaining that folks talked about Billy Kennedy in Frank Martin thread when your whole purpose is to turn the Frank Martin thread into a back-and-forth about Billy Kennedy.
Quote:
Or in my case, I can make a comment when Kennedy didn't enter my mind, and people are making up a narrative where I'm defending Kennedy.
Yeah, Kennedy wasn't on your mind.
Yeah...
Can we just all agree that Frank Martin has achieved more in one season than Billy Kennedy has in his entire career? A final 4 is EXTREMELY difficult to get to, and what makes it even more amazing, is that he did it at a non-basketball school like USCE.
That being said, in evaluating Billy Kennedy, I think everyone can also agree that he is a decent recruiter and nothing more than an average coach (as seen by his career winning percentage, mostly at underachieving programs). Good defensive coach, bad offensive coach. Nothing more; nothing less.
Bottom line - A&M should have a better coach than we currently have as dictated by the results he's had as compared to his predecessors, who set the bar higher.
That being said, in evaluating Billy Kennedy, I think everyone can also agree that he is a decent recruiter and nothing more than an average coach (as seen by his career winning percentage, mostly at underachieving programs). Good defensive coach, bad offensive coach. Nothing more; nothing less.
Bottom line - A&M should have a better coach than we currently have as dictated by the results he's had as compared to his predecessors, who set the bar higher.
Is there going to be an enhancement to be able to object to staff posts for trolling?
What a joke
If Billy Kennedy retired tomorrow how many of you would honestly want Martin on the short list of candidates? I would not.
Why?
How about we phrase the question this way. Would you trade having to hire Frank Martin for the assurance of getting BKs retirement papers signed tomorrow? Yes to that 2.3 million times.GE said:
If Billy Kennedy retired tomorrow how many of you would honestly want Martin on the short list of candidates? I would not.
What? Why not? He's proven he can win at two historically bad places.GE said:
If Billy Kennedy retired tomorrow how many of you would honestly want Martin on the short list of candidates? I would not.
Oh, and despite Sandhop's inability to process this, Martin has twice been farther in the tournament than any coach ever at A&M.
Featured Stories
See All
18:00
10h ago
4.8k
13:34
10h ago
1.1k
Our QB1 Stephen McGee remembers his NFL Draft experience
by David Nuño
2:07
11h ago
2.0k
JW
Interesting betting lines for futures for A&M football as of April 2024
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
61