My expectations: Make the tournament with a loaded roster, but being bounced in the first round as an upset, another excuse about playing too many young players and A&M administration ignoring poor coaching by BK which results in signing him to another extension.

Method Man said:

---

greg.w.h said:

---

deh40 said:

---

Ryno01 said:

---

We have everyone back and we need to go .500 in the elite category and win the rest
But I dont know how we just automatically turn the 0fer around with our coaching staff.....Id LOVE to see us hire an experienced bench coach to fill the Stansbury void

---

Isn't that what Don Maestri is?

---

My understanding is he can't interact with the players or the court officials. He appears to primarily talk with BK. Probably best to think of him as an advisor rather than a coach.

---

Maestri hasn't done anything worth paying for.

---

Maestri is here to supplement his retirement, nothing more, nothing less.

It's just one dude's opinion.

Besides, when you're getting 0% from that 20%, it stands out.

Those are quick thoughts? I'd hate to see the long version.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Seth Davis in the article below opines that basketball is 70% talent, 20% coaching, and 10% luck.

TexAgs sure does obsess on that 20% part of the pie. What a time waster.

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2017/03/29/final-four-preview-north-carolina-oregon-gonzaga-south-carolina

---

If your are playing against teams with similar talent then that 20% becomes a major deal. Hence why we had no wins vs good teams this year but played them close. I would venture to say coaching means more in closer games and end of game scenarios.

Method Man said:

---

Those are quick thoughts? I'd hate to see the long version.

---

and that's cause I backspaced quite a bit.

Just trying to add real content for once.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Seth Davis in the article below opines that basketball is 70% talent, 20% coaching, and 10% luck.

TexAgs sure does obsess on that 20% part of the pie. What a time waster.

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2017/03/29/final-four-preview-north-carolina-oregon-gonzaga-south-carolina

---

maybe for the regular season I could buy that.

For success in the tournament you also have to add experience. Kentucky has a lot of talent but they've had trouble reaching a Final Four lately because they don't have experienced players where it really matters.

AggieBaller98 said:

---

Kentucky has a lot of talent but they've had trouble reaching a Final Four lately because they don't have experienced players where it really matters.

---

Kentucky has been in two of the last four Final Fours and they were tied with UNC in the closing seconds and could have easily gone to this one.

Experience is like any other attribute, it can help if you lack others, or if you have enough of the others it doesn't really matter.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Seth Davis in the article below opines that basketball is 70% talent, 20% coaching, and 10% luck.

TexAgs sure does obsess on that 20% part of the pie. What a time waster.

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2017/03/29/final-four-preview-north-carolina-oregon-gonzaga-south-carolina

---

Oh, well if Seth Davis says so. I'm sure he spent lots of time on those numbers

Quote:

---

Seth Davis in the article below opines that basketball is 70% talent, 20% coaching, and 10% luck.

TexAgs sure does obsess on that 20% part of the pie. What a time waster.

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2017/03/29/final-four-preview-north-carolina-oregon-gonzaga-south-carolina

---

Blue Star. If for no other reason than it matters not one iota what is said here, positive or negative about that 20% (which I agree with). Phi Slamma Jamma, just roll the ball out on the court. I'll take that. It's more about posters showing that they "knowi" all about.......everything.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Seth Davis in the article below opines that basketball is 70% talent, 20% coaching, and 10% luck.

TexAgs sure does obsess on that 20% part of the pie. What a time waster.

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2017/03/29/final-four-preview-north-carolina-oregon-gonzaga-south-carolina

---

This argument would make more sense of the coach wasn't in charge of bringing in the talent.


Expectations for next year: make tournament or get out

What will probably happen next year: make the NIT, and listen to the talking heads tell us we improved and it wasn't reasonable to expect a tournament run with a first year point guard. BK gets extension.

Not surprised to see Hop already managing expectations for next year on page 1 of this thread.

Look at the final 4. All known as very good coaches in their own way. None are a recruit and roll it out type of guy.

Basketball more than any other team sport is a coaches sport, Seth is as an idiot.

Talent in cbb will always get you a seat at the table. But more times than not its coaching which floats to the top once the tournament starts.

Of course there are exceptions... Like Napier and the Uconn boys. Not that Ollie is a bad coach, but that team was just willed to victory by those players.

Agnzona said:

---

Basketball more than any other team sport is a coaches sport, Seth is as an idiot.

---

And at the same time, talent can cover coaching ineptitude in basketball, to an extent, if it's good enough. Lebron bounces from coach to coach to coach and ends up in the Finals every year. I think he took four different coaches to the NBA finals.

Talent is the most important variable, maybe not 70% of the equation but a big chunk of it. However, talent isn't talent. The same guy can play for two different coaches and look like two completely different players. It takes something from the coach to get the most out of an individual player's God-given talent, to surround his best players with the right supporting cast, and finally to develop quality game plans at both ends of the court.

LeBron is a player-coach. He runs the team. Larry Bird and Bill Russell are the only players in the history of the game that run anywhere close to this status.

On the other hand, the Spurs are MASTERS at player development and on court coaching.

Plus college ball is far more of a coaches' game than the NBA.

jml2621 said:

---

Plus college ball is far more of a coaches' game than the NBA.

---

Agree. In the end, a coach is only as good as his talent and the talent is highly dependent on the coach. One doesn't exist apart from the other, and getting either one wrong lowers your ceiling (and your floor)

Tribe2013 said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Seth Davis in the article below opines that basketball is 70% talent, 20% coaching, and 10% luck.

TexAgs sure does obsess on that 20% part of the pie. What a time waster.

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2017/03/29/final-four-preview-north-carolina-oregon-gonzaga-south-carolina

---

Oh, well if Seth Davis says so. I'm sure he spent lots of time on those numbers

---

Seth is also Lanny's son and had Khan as his avi on twitter even after the election. When I challenged him on it he called me unpatriotic.

We saw how that worked out for Seth. He's a know nothing poli-sci major that should go back to doing stand-up comedy.

Sorry-probably meant for the political board but relative. And he went to Duke so I can't hate him too much. But can still agree he's an idiot when it comes to hoops.

txag72 said:

---

Quote:

---

Seth Davis in the article below opines that basketball is 70% talent, 20% coaching, and 10% luck.

TexAgs sure does obsess on that 20% part of the pie. What a time waster.

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2017/03/29/final-four-preview-north-carolina-oregon-gonzaga-south-carolina

---

Blue Star. If for no other reason than it matters not one iota what is said here, positive or negative about that 20% (which I agree with). Phi Slamma Jamma, just roll the ball out on the court. I'll take that. It's more about posters showing that they "knowi" all about.......everything.

---

You pout too much. If cbb was only 20% coaching, then Roy/K/Boeheim/Izzo/Wooden/Knight/Smith/Few wouldn't be household names. I'll give you $1 for every "star" player Bob Knight coached, and I'll even spot you Isaiah Thomas for free. Then, you give me $1 for every Krzyzewski player that was a star in college but nothing in the NBA. Look at Mark Few - he takes 1*s and backwoods Canadians and turns them into Kelly Olynyk, Adam Morrison, and Rony Turiaf

Agnzona said:

---

Basketball more than any other team sport is a coaches sport

---

Flagged for trolling. No one could believe this.

CactusThomas said:

---

Agnzona said:

---

Basketball more than any other team sport is a coaches sport

---

Flagged for trolling. No one could believe this.

---

It's absolutely true. Look at history. The NBA or college it's all about the coaches. Look at the Lakers and Celtics history or even the Rockets.

And for college look at UCLA, Arizona, Kentucky, Georgetown and even A&M for examples of coaching not talent making the main difference.

I guess Saban and Belichick just lucked into some decent situations.

Quote:

---

You pout too much. If cbb was only 20% coaching, then Roy/K/Boeheim/Izzo/Wooden/Knight/Smith/Few wouldn't be household names. I'll give you $1 for every "star" player Bob Knight coached, and I'll even spot you Isaiah Thomas for free. Then, you give me $1 for every Krzyzewski player that was a star in college but nothing in the NBA. Look at Mark Few - he takes 1*s and backwoods Canadians and turns them into Kelly Olynyk, Adam Morrison, and Rony Turiaf

---

Were you even alive when Guy Lewis was coaching? Not sure what I'm pouting about. I just don't happen to think this forum is as full of basketball knowledge as a single Div. 1 coach.

CactusThomas said:

---

I guess Saban and Belichick just lucked into some decent situations.

---

Use your brain. Just because coaches are important in football doesn't make it more of a "coaches sport" than basketball

GE said:

---

wacarnolds said:

---

CactusThomas said:

---

I guess Saban and Belichick just lucked into some decent situations.

---

Use your brain. Just because coaches are important in football doesn't make it more of a "coaches sport" than basketball

---

Because coaches call pretty much every play and scheme matters more than talent a lot of times football is more of a coaches sport.

---

Did John Chavis leave all his good play calls and schemes in Baton Rouge?

wacarnolds said:

---

GE said:

---

wacarnolds said:

---

CactusThomas said:

---

I guess Saban and Belichick just lucked into some decent situations.

---

Use your brain. Just because coaches are important in football doesn't make it more of a "coaches sport" than basketball

---

Because coaches call pretty much every play and scheme matters more than talent a lot of times football is more of a coaches sport.

---

Did John Chavis leave all his good play calls and schemes in Baton Rouge?

---

Chavis in particular has a scheme dependent on having high level athletes at certain positions. I would point you to the TCU coach or Baylor offense or Patriots for examples of scheme being more important than talent.

GE said:

---

wacarnolds said:

---

GE said:

---

wacarnolds said:

---

CactusThomas said:

---

I guess Saban and Belichick just lucked into some decent situations.

---

Use your brain. Just because coaches are important in football doesn't make it more of a "coaches sport" than basketball

---

Because coaches call pretty much every play and scheme matters more than talent a lot of times football is more of a coaches sport.

---

Did John Chavis leave all his good play calls and schemes in Baton Rouge?

---

Chavis in particular has a scheme dependent on having high level athletes at certain positions. I would point you to the TCU coach or Baylor offense or Patriots for examples of scheme being more important than talent.

---

Schemes are important in football, I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. You appear to saying that schemes are the domain of football and there aren't particular coaches/schemes in basketball that proven successful with different players throughout the years.