The cumulative Pearl thread

Do you want Bruce Pearl to be Head Coach at UT next season?

  • Total voters
    0
#1,627
#1,627
oklavol said:
You want to sit here and tell me Pearl inherited a better team then Green did.
Click to expand...

He def inherited better situation than Green did.. Watson developed under Pearl for that whole year? Please. This is rediculous. If Green wasn't who he was he wouldn't have been fired at that point in 01, wasn't all about results, but he did underachive with what he had, but he had more of a rebuilding job ahead of him than Pearl did. Green had nowhere near the support from AD. He would have been lousy regardless, just saying
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#1,629
#1,629
LawVol13 said:
You honestly thought I was talking about JaJuan Smith and not CJ Watson? That tells me about all I need to know.
Click to expand...

According to him, Pearl is responsible for Watsons success. I am not sure why he is basing one's college success on post college success. Just because a player doesn't go to the nba doesn't mean he was less of college player. Pearl had a team the first year that had 3 very good guards, a post player who was good enough to play at Clemson and transferred from there(dismissed by Pearl), Wingate, etc. I would take the 05 roster over 97 roster iny day of week. So yes, I say Pearl inherited better team than Green. Let's also not forget that Tyler Smith was a commit at the time Pearl came to UT, whether he is responsible for him opting out or not, I am not sure. Heard all the stories
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#1,630
#1,630
oklavol said:
They weren't that good in the 70's and 80's. Go look at the ncaa appearances post and how far they went in the tournament during that time.
Click to expand...

Again, back in the old days, you had to win the conference just to get in the tournament. And then they opened it up a little bit, but even so, when there are only 40 teams in the tournament, you don't get to play Witchita State American University in the first round. It's vastly easier to get into the tournament now than it was in the pre-Dickey years, and if now if you're one of the best 40-ish teams in the country then your first round game is what ought to be a layup. Comparing NCAA performance in the 2000s with the 70s and 80s is pointless. It's like comparing football teams from before and after the forward pass.
 
#1,631
#1,631
Vercingetorix said:
Again, back in the old days, you had to win the conference just to get in the tournament. And then they opened it up a little bit, but even so, when there are only 40 teams in the tournament, you don't get to play Witchita State American University in the first round. It's vastly easier to get into the tournament now than it was in the pre-Dickey years, and if now if you're one of the best 40-ish teams in the country then your first round game is what ought to be a layup. Comparing NCAA performance in the 2000s with the 70s and 80s is pointless. It's like comparing football teams from before and after the forward pass.
Click to expand...

The sweet 16 is the final 16 teams whether you start with a field of 64 teams, 40 teams, 32, or 25.

If you are arguing that they weren't able to make the reduced field and get into the tournament I could agree with you, but making the field and not getting to the sweet 16 or higher they really cant blame anyone else but themselves for their performance.
 
Last edited:
#1,632
#1,632
LawVol13 said:
You honestly thought I was talking about JaJuan Smith and not CJ Watson? That tells me about all I need to know.
Click to expand...

Your the one making the analogy how great these guys are based on the NBA career. Unfortunately, Smith or Lofton NBA's careers were very short. I'm been on the board since 2005, I think I might have heard of CJ Watson at some point during that time.
 
#1,634
#1,634
oklavol said:
The sweet 16 is the final 16 teams whether you start with a field of 64 teams, 40 teams, 32, or 25.

If you are arguing that they weren't able to make the reduced field and get into the tournament I could agree with you, but making the field and not getting to the sweet 16 or higher they really cant blame anyone else but themselves for their performance.
Click to expand...

Well, obviously the expanded field has had two major effects. It's much harder to get into the tournament to begin with -- go look at Ray Mears's teams' records and consider that he only played in the NCAA tournament three times. But the other effect is that, as the field has become more diluted, the quality of the average team in the tournament has gone way down. Tourney runs are obviously more likely when there are more mediocre teams in the field; just look at UT's run to the round of eight last year.

Pearl's NCAA wins have come over Winthrop, Long Beach State, Virginia, American University, Butler, San Diego State, Ohio, and Ohio State. How many of those teams would even have been in the tournament to begin with back in the days of DeVoe and Mears?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top