SEC media predictions for 2023

#27
#27
jaguinn5 said:
Minus the blue bloods? What are you talking about? Name a coach who has recruited better and done less with it. He did the same thing at Texas, and they told us when we hired him to get ready to never live up to the expectations. He's an elite recruiter and an above average coach. That's it.
Click to expand...

It’s not hard. Name the coaches that have gone 2-1 or better 6x or more in the last 25 NCAATs. How many of those weren’t at UNC, Duke, KY, of KU? Rick Barnes is one. Mark Few should be another. Who are the others? You shouldn’t even have to take off your socks to add up the rest.
 
#28
#28
Thunder Good-Oil said:
It’s not hard. Name the coaches that have gone 2-1 or better 6x or more in the last 25 NCAATs. How many of those weren’t at UNC, Duke, KY, of KU? Rick Barnes is one. Mark Few should be another. Who are the others? You shouldn’t even have to take off your socks to add up the rest.
Click to expand...
Most NCAA Tournament Wins by Coach: Best Records Among Active

There are 20 ACTIVE coaches with better tourney records by win percentage than barnes. That link has a lot of other useful metrics for determining post season success. Barnes is clearly NOT an elite coach in the postseason. Factor in expectations going into the tourney and Barnes has failed to reach expectations more often than not, both at Texas and UT.

If we are content with consistently great recruiting, regular top 3-5 finishes in the SEC, and first round exits in March Madness, then Barnes is our guy. If, however, we want to have consistent post season success and a real chance at a title, then qe aren't going to get it with him.
 
Last edited:
#29
#29
jaguinn5 said:
Most NCAA Tournament Wins by Coach: Best Records Among Active

There are 20 ACTIVE coaches with better tourney records by win percentage than barnes. That link has a lot of other useful metrics for determining post season success. Barnes is clearly NOT an elite coach in the postseason. Factor in expectations going into the tourney and Barnes has failed to reach expectations more often than not, both at Texas and UT.

If we are content with consistently great recruiting, regular top 3-5 finishes in the SEC, and first round exits in March Madness, then Barnes is our guy. If, however, we want to have consistent post season success and a real chance at a title, then qe aren't going to get it with him.
Click to expand...
Barnes is Tennessee's guy

find another team
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nickid1975, TrumpedUpVol and walkenvol
#30
#30
jaguinn5 said:
Most NCAA Tournament Wins by Coach: Best Records Among Active

There are 20 ACTIVE coaches with better tourney records by win percentage than barnes. That link has a lot of other useful metrics for determining post season success. Barnes is clearly NOT an elite coach in the postseason. Factor in expectations going into the tourney and Barnes has failed to reach expectations more often than not, both at Texas and UT.

If we are content with consistently great recruiting, regular top 3-5 finishes in the SEC, and first round exits in March Madness, then Barnes is our guy. If, however, we want to have consistent post season success and a real chance at a title, then qe aren't going to get it with him.
Click to expand...

The overall record in the NCAAT will be diluted when coaches get even their lesser teams into the field. Barnes managed to get something like all but one of his Texas teams in. Durant played one year for the Longhorns.

I’m still waiting on a list of the coaches that have gone 2-1 or better 6x in the NCAAT since 1998. Without including the blue bloods (Cal, Coack K, Roy, Bill Self). I mentioned Mark Few as one. Bruce Pearl is probably another. Billy Donovan did it 8x. Who else? It’s an elite club.
 
#31
#31
Thunder Good-Oil said:
The overall record in the NCAAT will be diluted when coaches get even their lesser teams into the field. Barnes managed to get something like all but one of his Texas teams in. Durant played one year for the Longhorns.

I’m still waiting on a list of the coaches that have gone 2-1 or better 6x in the NCAAT since 1998. Without including the blue bloods (Cal, Coack K, Roy, Bill Self). I mentioned Mark Few as one. Bruce Pearl is probably another. Billy Donovan did it 8x. Who else? It’s an elite club.
Click to expand...
Just some quick names that came to mind...

Tom Izzo has done it 14 times.
Jim Boeheim has done it 10 times.
Jay Wright has done it 8 times.
John Beilein has done it 7 times.
Sean Miller has done it 7 times.
Bob Huggins has done it 6 times.

Bruce Pearl has done it 5 times.
Steve Alford has done it 5 times.
Chris Mack has done it 5 times.
Ben Howland has done it 5 times.
Dana Altman has done it 5 times.
 
Last edited:
#32
#32
cncchris33 said:
Just some quick names that came to mind...

Tom Izzo has done it 14 times.
Jim Boeheim has done it 10 times.
Jay Wright has done it 8 times.
Sean Miller has done it 7 times.
Bob Huggins has done it 6 times.

Bruce Pearl has done it 5 times.
Steve Alford has done it 5 times.
Chris Mack has done it 5 times.
Ben Howland has done it 5 times.
Dana Altman has done it 5 times.
Click to expand...

Wow. Barnes has done the 2nd weekend more often than Pearl and those other 4. Few has 11.
 
#36
#36
cncchris33 said:
No disagreement. Just thought I'd throw it out there so all the cards were on the table.
Click to expand...

I’m amused at how much a Sweet 16 (getting to the second week) gets discounted by delusional “fans”. There was only one year that was better than that in the entire history of TN basketball. Instead of enjoying the high level of competing so many will whine about not meeting their lofty expectations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: walkenvol
#38
#38
jaguinn5 said:
I hope we can recreate that mentality and talent we had with Grant, Bone, and Admiral. I just don't see it. Barnes has never shown he can get it done at the highest level. He's a regular season HOF coach that regularly falls asleep in the post season.
Click to expand...
This is sort of beating a dead horse, but I'll jump in anyway. If you can explain specifically what it is Barnes is doing wrong in his NCAA tourney approach, I'd love to know what it is. My opinion is that the tourney is a crapshoot, and sometimes the breaks go the wrong way. Was Pearl a great tournament coach in 2019 and a horrible one this past year? Countless other examples exist. Yes, it's extremely frustrating that we continue to come up short in the dance, but I really think it's mostly been bad luck. I really believe we're due for the breaks to go our way.
 
#39
#39
cncchris33 said:
Yes, but now in fairness to Pearl, and his supporters will be quick to point this out, Barnes has had 6 more opportunities in that time span.
Click to expand...

I still don't get why the ones that bash Barnes for it don't give Pearl more crap about it when he was here. Did I miss it? I mean he had arguably the best UT men's team in history and they got b-slapped by Louisivlle in the S16. It wasn't even a game. I mean does Pearl really get that big of a pass for making it to the only E8? Why do I get the feeling for the usual crowd if Barnes makes an E8 this season it won't be good enough?

And if the response is "bad matchup", welcome to Circular Arguments 101.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nickid1975, cncchris33, StickMan and 1 other person
#40
#40
VolsSportsFan said:
I still don't get why the ones that bash Barnes for it don't give Pearl more crap about it when he was here. Did I miss it? I mean he had arguably the best UT men's team in history and they got b-slapped by Louisivlle in the S16. It wasn't even a game. I mean does Pearl really get that big of a pass for making it to the only E8? Why do I get the feeling for the usual crowd if Barnes makes an E8 this season it won't be good enough?

And if the response is "bad matchup", welcome to Circular Arguments 101.
Click to expand...

Exactly
 
#41
#41
StickMan said:
This is sort of beating a dead horse, but I'll jump in anyway. If you can explain specifically what it is Barnes is doing wrong in his NCAA tourney approach, I'd love to know what it is. My opinion is that the tourney is a crapshoot, and sometimes the breaks go the wrong way. Was Pearl a great tournament coach in 2019 and a horrible one this past year? Countless other examples exist. Yes, it's extremely frustrating that we continue to come up short in the dance, but I really think it's mostly been bad luck. I really believe we're due for the breaks to go our way.
Click to expand...

It's not as much of a crap shoot as everyone seems to think. That's why the same teams that attract the best coaches go deep in the tournament so often. If the NCAA tournament was a crapshoot there'd be no such thing as the blue blood programs in the post season, they'd win a lot in the regular season then a roll of the dice would get them in the tournament. The numbers don't support that. Out of 168 possible Final Four slots since 1980 UCLA, Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, or North Carolina took up 52 of those slots. When 5 programs take up 30 percent of the possible slots available to potentially 300-350+ teams across NCAA basketball, it's not nearly the crapshoot people claim. To go a step further and add in the next tier of programs according to the CBS best programs of all time rating, Indiana, Michigan State, Syracuse, Louisville, Villanova, Arizona, UConn and Ohio State, the appearances in the final four goes up by 40 more. Suddenly 13 programs out of over 300-350+ take up 92 of 168 slots in the final four over the last 42 seasons, 55 percent of the time one of 13 programs is there. If you go back to the 70s, etc those same 13 programs will still find there way into more than half the possible final fours.
 
#42
#42
VolArmy74 said:
It's not as much of a crap shoot as everyone seems to think. That's why the same teams that attract the best coaches go deep in the tournament so often. If the NCAA tournament was a crapshoot there'd be no such thing as the blue blood programs in the post season, they'd win a lot in the regular season then a roll of the dice would get them in the tournament. The numbers don't support that. Out of 168 possible Final Four slots since 1980 UCLA, Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, or North Carolina took up 52 of those slots. When 5 programs take up 30 percent of the possible slots available to potentially 300-350+ teams across NCAA basketball, it's not nearly the crapshoot people claim. To go a step further and add in the next tier of programs according to the CBS best programs of all time rating, Indiana, Michigan State, Syracuse, Louisville, Villanova, Arizona, UConn and Ohio State, the appearances in the final four goes up by 40 more. Suddenly 13 programs out of over 300-350+ take up 92 of 168 slots in the final four over the last 42 seasons, 55 percent of the time one of 13 programs is there. If you go back to the 70s, etc those same 13 programs will still find there way into more than half the possible final fours.
Click to expand...
Respectfully ... I do think there is a LOT of LUCK. Here is my line of thinking ...
1) We are basically talking TEAMS with SUPERIOR TALENT level on a PERENNIAL basis ... UCLA, Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, or North Carolina took up 52 of those slots. Blue bloods make it deep for at least two reasons ... talent and VERY favorable seeding! It helps if they have superior coaching, but they can have inferior coaching and still make it deeper due to superior talent because talented kids want to play for Ky, Duke, etc.
2) Now you are talking about fringe or wanta be blue boods who are close to top tier or bygone Blue boods ... Indiana, Michigan State, Syracuse, Louisville, Villanova, Arizona, UConn and Ohio State ... they perennially have excellent talent and have or did have excellent coaches at one time. These teams have an inherent advantage that is not awarded to all other programs because they have a reputation of having good teams ... and often times these teams receive mildly favorable seeding.
Furthermore, both sets of teams either ARE favorable placed in regions or are sometimes favorably placed in regions.
Face facts .... the teams with MORE TALENT rarely lose to lessor talented teams; this is even truer when you give those teams just a small advantage.
Just my .02.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cardvolfan
#43
#43
From my point of view, Tennessee and Rick Barnes ... they are trying to get in the wanta be Blue bloods. We are close. We are starting to get talent (5 Star talent) on a perennial basis.... Here are our 5 Stars from the last few classes (according to me) ...
Springer and Keon
Chandler
Phillips
That's the start of perennial recruiting, but that is only 1 player per class, the TRUE blue bloods have 2 or more EVERY class. And a bunch of talent to surround them.
If Tennessee can continue to get a 1 - 5 star every class and start regularly making it deep in the NCAA tournament ... THEN we will legitimately make an argument that we belong in the fringe or wanta blue blood class.
I think we have the team to reach the round of 16 or the round of 8 .... OR ... if we are better than I think ... final four. Go vols!
 
#44
#44
SN-A-C Orange said:
Respectfully ... I do think there is a LOT of LUCK. Here is my line of thinking ...
1) We are basically talking TEAMS with SUPERIOR TALENT level on a PERENNIAL basis ... UCLA, Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, or North Carolina took up 52 of those slots. Blue bloods make it deep for at least two reasons ... talent and VERY favorable seeding! It helps if they have superior coaching, but they can have inferior coaching and still make it deeper due to superior talent because talented kids want to play for Ky, Duke, etc.
2) Now you are talking about fringe or wanta be blue boods who are close to top tier or bygone Blue boods ... Indiana, Michigan State, Syracuse, Louisville, Villanova, Arizona, UConn and Ohio State ... they perennially have excellent talent and have or did have excellent coaches at one time. These teams have an inherent advantage that is not awarded to all other programs because they have a reputation of having good teams ... and often times these teams receive mildly favorable seeding.
Furthermore, both sets of teams either ARE favorable placed in regions or are sometimes favorably placed in regions.
Face facts .... the teams with MORE TALENT rarely lose to lessor talented teams; this is even truer when you give those teams just a small advantage.
Just my .02.
Click to expand...

You say there's a lot of luck but go on to explain that the teams with the best talent and best coaches usually win their way through. So it seems we agree. The tournament isn't really a crapshoot. The best coaches and talent consistently win their way through to the late rounds. We are the exception to that rule. No matter our talent advantage, or coach, we have generally lost to lesser teams and what would appear to be lesser coaches, in the tournament.
 
#45
#45
It’s both. Blue bloods and wanna be blue bloods get their runs very much due to high level talent at every position. Then those fighting over the rest of the FF, EE, and SS spots typically need a lot of luck combined with a high level of talent. Loyola-Chicago is exhibit A. They had really good talent relative to their typical roster PLUS a lot of luck.

Having enough talent is necessary to be included. Unless the talent is off the chart, teams also rely on a lot of luck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SN-A-C Orange
#46
#46
VolArmy74 said:
You say there's a lot of luck but go on to explain that the teams with the best talent and best coaches usually win their way through. So it seems we agree. The tournament isn't really a crapshoot. The best coaches and talent consistently win their way through to the late rounds. We are the exception to that rule. No matter our talent advantage, or coach, we have generally lost to lesser teams and what would appear to be lesser coaches, in the tournament.
Click to expand...
They DON'T always win ...
Kentucky #2 [way more talented, favorable seed] lost to St Peter #15 in the 1st round. This is inexplicable in a normal world ... therefore, LUCK! If they play this game 9 more times ... Kentucky would likely win all 9 of them! St Peter almost made it to the FF four!!!!
Tennessee #3 [more talented, favorable seed] lost to Chicago Loyola #11 in the 2nd round in 2018 ... Chicago Loyola were very LUCKY in a number of games during their Final Four run. If a team gets hot, the ball bounces favorably ... I call that LUCK!
It takes talent, player health, team chemistry, playing at a high level, favorable refs, favorable venue to your teams strengths .... so yeah ... I DO think it takes some LUCK ...
March Madness 2022: John Calipari 'shellshocked' by Saint Peter's
Kentucky Basketball: John Calipari opens up on 'crushing' NCAA Tournament upset
Why Loyola Chicago’s 2018 NCAA tournament run was one of the best - Mid-Major Madness
 
  • Like
Reactions: cardvolfan
#47
#47
SN-A-C Orange said:
They DON'T always win ...
Kentucky #2 [way more talented, favorable seed] lost to St Peter #15 in the 1st round. This is inexplicable in a normal world ... therefore, LUCK! If they play this game 9 more times ... Kentucky would likely win all 9 of them! St Peter almost made it to the FF four!!!!
Tennessee #3 [more talented, favorable seed] lost to Chicago Loyola #11 in the 2nd round in 2018 ... Chicago Loyola were very LUCKY in a number of games during their Final Four run. If a team gets hot, the ball bounces favorably ... I call that LUCK!
It takes talent, player health, team chemistry, playing at a high level, favorable refs, favorable venue to your teams strengths .... so yeah ... I DO think it takes some LUCK ...
March Madness 2022: John Calipari 'shellshocked' by Saint Peter's
Kentucky Basketball: John Calipari opens up on 'crushing' NCAA Tournament upset
Why Loyola Chicago’s 2018 NCAA tournament run was one of the best - Mid-Major Madness
Click to expand...

They don't always win, no one does. But 13 teams out of over 300 making 55 percent of all final four spots over a 42 year period is a strong indicator that luck has nothing to do with basketball. Its coaching and players.
 
#48
#48
VolArmy74 said:
They don't always win, no one does. But 13 teams out of over 300 making 55 percent of all final four spots over a 42 year period is a strong indicator that luck has nothing to do with basketball. Its coaching and players.
Click to expand...

Probably 75% of the 300 can be eliminated as regular participants because they don’t have the resources. If luck wasn’t a factor and only talent matters then Phi Slama Jama would have had a natty.

There’s a bit more room at the top of NCAA basketball relative to football. FB only has 4 or 5 regular contenders. Basketball has a lot more room and about a dozen regulars.

It takes both to be in the mix every year. UVa failed versus #16 and then quickly won it all. Luck mattered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and SN-A-C Orange
#50
#50
  • Like
Reactions: SN-A-C Orange and cardvolfan
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top