Low Ceiling + High Floor = Middle of Curve

[Porked Tongue]

I think we've reached the crossroads for our basketball program.  Obviously everyone wants to win big and win all the time.  However it's been so long since we really won big that we've settled into a stage of what is acceptable.  I believe that is harmful.

Basketball is an odd animal.  You can dang near schedule yourself 10+ wins every single year.  You can turn the majority of your roster over as frequently as every other year.  Those two factors make measuring success tricky.  When you start at a low floor, progress is often measured by wins.  But these wins are manipulated by scheduling.

Let's look at Anderson's tenure at the UA:
2011-12    18–14   6–10   9th   
2012–13   19–13   10–8   7th   
2013–14   22–12   10–8   5th   NIT Second Round
2014–15   27–9         13-5 2nd   NCAA second round
2015-16    12-14          5-8

Obviously a slow but methodical improvement on W/L's.  But with the rise so slow it opens itself to a thorough interpretation.  Those steps were baby steps until last year.  Now that the bar is set for success, the step back to this year is inexcusable.  No matter the reason, he is going to finish with a worse record in Year 5 than in Year 1.

I submit that with Anderson we have a low ceiling and a high floor.  Basically that when we are at our best, we are not really good enough.  On the flip, when we are bad we are not "that bad".  I believe this is the problem.  When we are good(ceiling), it's not good enough and it took to long to get there.  Inversely, when we are down(floor) it's not rock bottom but we are there for to long.

I think it's a very mediocre way to evaluate his tenure or any well compensated coach at a Power 5 conference.   The success isn't really there.

[BigHog396]

I think we've reached the crossroads for our basketball program.  Obviously everyone wants to win big and win all the time.  However it's been so long since we really won big that we've settled into a stage of what is acceptable.  I believe that is harmful.

Basketball is an odd animal.  You can dang near schedule yourself 10+ wins every single year.  You can turn the majority of your roster over as frequently as every other year.  Those two factors make measuring success tricky.  When you start at a low floor, progress is often measured by wins.  But these wins are manipulated by scheduling.

Let's look at Anderson's tenure at the UA:
2011-12    18–14   6–10   9th   
2012–13   19–13   10–8   7th   
2013–14   22–12   10–8   5th   NIT Second Round
2014–15   27–9         13-5 2nd   NCAA second round
2015-16    12-14          5-8

Obviously a slow but methodical improvement on W/L's.  But with the rise so slow it opens itself to a thorough interpretation.  Those steps were baby steps until last year.  Now that the bar is set for success, the step back to this year is inexcusable.  No matter the reason, he is going to finish with a worse record in Year 5 than in Year 1.

I submit that with Anderson we have a low ceiling and a high floor.  Basically that when we are at our best, we are not really good enough.  On the flip, when we are bad we are not "that bad".  I believe this is the problem.  When we are good(ceiling), it's not good enough and it took too long to get there.  Inversely, when we are down(floor) it's not rock bottom but we are there for too long.

I think it's a very mediocre way to evaluate his tenure or any well compensated coach at a Power 5 conference.   The success isn't really there.

Great summary of how I see it too.  Especially about how inexcusible the results this year are.  Just nothing to point to a real pattern of truly building a program, especially because of the horrible recruiting results.

[Atlhogfan1]

I expected this conversation to take place at some point.  In season 5 is a little earlier than anticipated.  I was expecting more in a few seasons of treading water with early NCAA exits.  I do believe this conversation will drag out for a while especially since it is starting now. 

[Breems]

Good recruiting = high ceiling.
Bad recruiting = low floor.

I believe Coach A's successes and failures have been precise reflections of the talent he has put on the floor. I can't identify many moments in his career where he has outcoached or undercoached his teams.

We are bad this year. It is rock bottom,  and it is "that bad." Conversely, I think most people agreed last year was good enough, even those that are angry this year and have switched to the "1 win over Wofford" euphemism.

I understand the scheduling issue, but don't most schools do that? It's just how basketball scheduling is done. I don't think the automatic wins are really factored in. It's pretty clear cut for most programs of our caliber - punch a ticket to the Big Dance and you have a successful season; NIT is mediocre and keeps anyone not already on the hot seat in play; anything less is a complete failure.

I don't think Coach A has established a high floor or low ceiling. Fans were happy last year and took no time to become overwhelmingly pissed this year. No sugarcoating required.

[ShadowHawg]

I think we've reached the crossroads for our basketball program.  Obviously everyone wants to win big and win all the time.  However it's been so long since we really won big that we've settled into a stage of what is acceptable.  I believe that is harmful.

Basketball is an odd animal.  You can dang near schedule yourself 10+ wins every single year.  You can turn the majority of your roster over as frequently as every other year.  Those two factors make measuring success tricky.  When you start at a low floor, progress is often measured by wins.  But these wins are manipulated by scheduling.

Let's look at Anderson's tenure at the UA:
2011-12    18–14   6–10   9th   
2012–13   19–13   10–8   7th   
2013–14   22–12   10–8   5th   NIT Second Round
2014–15   27–9         13-5 2nd   NCAA second round
2015-16    12-14          5-8

Obviously a slow but methodical improvement on W/L's.  But with the rise so slow it opens itself to a thorough interpretation.  Those steps were baby steps until last year.  Now that the bar is set for success, the step back to this year is inexcusable.  No matter the reason, he is going to finish with a worse record in Year 5 than in Year 1.

I submit that with Anderson we have a low ceiling and a high floor.  Basically that when we are at our best, we are not really good enough.  On the flip, when we are bad we are not "that bad".  I believe this is the problem.  When we are good(ceiling), it's not good enough and it took too long to get there.  Inversely, when we are down(floor) it's not rock bottom but we are there for too long.

I think it's a very mediocre way to evaluate his tenure or any well compensated coach at a Power 5 conference.   The success isn't really there.

Crazy the conclusions you guys come up with.

The era has changed. Todd Day and Mayberry don't stay more than 2 years in this day and age. Unfortunately for a program like ours, that is devastating because in spite of the deluded's recollection of the past, U of A has never been a consistent talent magnet in the two major sports.

It's time a lot of you guys come into the present day in terms of our program. Our hottest recruiting grounds in Nolan's time are gone and were BEFORE he left. Tulsa is owned by OU and Memphis, well. None of the kids from in state can actually remember when our program was relevant so the VAST majority of talent from this state has been leaving for 15 years, beginning with James Anderson.

The notion that this is a plug and play type job anymore is fallacy. Under Heath and Pel, we were literally in the bottom third of this league for a decade. Altman fled before even coaching a practice and then both Izzo and Billy the Kid blasted us for firing their guys. That is who we were BEFORE MA took the job.

The only reason most of you don't recognize that this program has been back to pre Sutton levels is because Bud Walton Arena exists. This isn't the old SWC either. This league  is second only to the ACC in terms of sending players to the NBA and Kentucky doesn't even represent half of those kids.

I want this program to return to glory as well. I have been GOING to games for nearly 40 years now. The MYOPIA on the past is going to cost us our future. If MA can only raise us to MEDIOCRE, then that will be an improvement. We were only winning 38% of our conference games for previous DECADE to MA with maybe two winning conference records in that same time frame.

Stay calm and let the program heal for a minute, even if that means mediocrity for another year or two.

[Porked Tongue]

I guess these handicaps are exclusive to the UA program?

If we're going to give credit to MA for his past success you can't then exclude current factors as a road block.

In the present tense, he's not performing like the type of coach who will have sustained high end success.

[Ironhawg]

I was watching the game last night when they went into the Arkansas huddle during a time out.  Mike was miked up so you got to hear what he said during the time out.  Everything Mike said during that time out was motivational only.  He said nothing x's and o's at all.  Now maybe what he said was what he felt was needed at that particular point in the game, but this isn't the first time the cameras have gone into a huddle and shown basically the same thing.  I just don't get the impression that Mike is that great an x's and o's kind of coach.

[ShadowHawg]

I guess these handicaps are exclusive to the UA program?

If we're going to give credit to MA for his past success you can't then exclude current factors as a road block.

In the present tense, he's not performing like the type of coach who will have sustained high end success.

Neither is CBB and he came into a better situation in terms of program relevancy and will be taking a step back in year 4. He doesn't deserve to be fired either.

Our not being a plug and play program is a big deal. Our not being close to talent in a league that churns out NBA players is a big deal. Kids leaving early is a big deal.

Next season's roster will be our best roster since MA became coach. Can we at least wait until they play a game to pronounce such "conclusions"?

[ShadowHawg]

I was watching the game last night when they went into the Arkansas huddle during a time out.  Mike was miked up so you got to hear what he said during the time out.  Everything Mike said during that time out was motivational only.  He said nothing x's and o's at all.  Now maybe what he said was what he felt was needed at that particular point in the game, but this isn't the first time the cameras have gone into a huddle and shown basically the same thing.  I just don't get the impression that Mike is that great an x's and o's kind of coach.

If you are having to teach x's and o's on game day, you are in trouble.

[Porked Tongue]

Neither is CBB and he came into a better situation in terms of program relevancy and will be taking a step back in year 4. He doesn't deserve to be fired either.

Our not being a plug and play program is a big deal. Our not being close to talent in a league that churns out NBA players is a big deal. Kids leaving early is a big deal.

Next season's roster will be our best roster since MA became coach. Can we at least wait until they play a game to pronounce such "conclusions"?

You seem to be concluding that next year is going to be better.

I don't compare sports in this regard.  You can, but I won't.

[Porked Tongue]

If you are having to teach x's and o's on game day, you are in trouble.

Teaching and reminding are two different things.  Truth is(former players confirm) that he rarely is a chalkboard kind of coach.

He doesn't get enough players to play his way and he doesn't adjust enough to his roster. 

For a B5 coach, he is average.  Average is not what we're after.

[ShadowHawg]

You seem to be concluding that next year is going to be better.

I don't compare sports in this regard.  You can, but I won't.

You CAN compare performance however. Both sports have a track record of each to use for contrasts and analysis.

I said the roster is going to be better. Of that there is no doubt. There will be more experienced contributors than any time previous. There will be more scorers on the floor than any time previous. There will be more quality on the block than any time previous. We should be solid at the point.

Whether that equals more wins or not is what remains to be seen. But to not admit that the depth of the roster is stronger going into next season than it has been so far is a little problematic.

[ShadowHawg]

Teaching and reminding are two different things.  Truth is(former players confirm) that he rarely is a chalkboard kind of coach.

He doesn't get enough players to play his way and he doesn't adjust enough to his roster. 

For a B5 coach, he is average.  Average is not what we're after.

You have to crawl before you can walk. Walk before you can run.

While the ultimate goal is absolutely not to be average, AVERAGE is way above where this program was only 5 seasons ago. Like it or not, we are going to have to be average for a little while until we can jump to being GOOD.

[Porked Tongue]

I said the roster is going to be better. Of that there is no doubt.

That's a given by default.  Again, when you drop so low the word "better" is only true because of prior weakness.  "Better" is relative.   He can go 18-14 next year and it's better while still being being good.

[ShadowHawg]

That's a given by default.  Again, when you drop so low the word "better" is only true because of prior weakness.  "Better" is relative.   He can go 18-14 next year and it's better while still being being good.

YOU are the one who said "better". I am saying that next season's roster will be the BEST MA has had since coaching here. Not better.

Until you have seen someone perform with their best, then you can't know their ceiling. So far, the best season we have had was with a roster that was riddled with holes but had 2 difference makers on the team. Or do you think last season's roster was deeper than next season's?

[Porked Tongue]

You have to crawl before you can walk. Walk before you can run.

While the ultimate goal is absolutely not to be average, AVERAGE is way above where this program was only 5 seasons ago. Like it or not, we are going to have to be average for a little while until we can jump to being GOOD.

Crock of crap.  He's had long enough to not be average.  Throwing out his first two years, he's still not succeeding on a high enough level.

Good? Even when good it's not good enough and not for long enough(see original post).

You can caterwaul all you want but all you are doing is defending sustained mediocrity. He was hired based on his resume and hasn't lived up to it after 5 years.  That's longer than many coaches get.

[ShadowHawg]

Crock of crap.  He's had long enough to not be average.  Throwing out his first two years, he's still not succeeding on a high enough level.

Good? Even when good it's not good enough and not for long enough(see original post).

You can caterwaul all you want but all you are doing is defending sustained mediocrity. He was hired based on his resume and hasn't lived up to it after 5 years.  That's longer than many coaches get.

Examples please. Make sure that they are coaching at a school with a very small recruiting base, 3 POST SEASON berths and 1 win post season win in the previous 10 seasons, had 4 coaches in a decade, one of which backed out of his hiring, a 10 year conference winning pct of 38% previous to his hire, etc.

Calipari at Memphis was an NIT coach in 3 of his first 5 seasons at Memphis with the 5th being a NIT season after unimpressive performances in the NCAA. Tom Crean at Indiana missed had 4 years of no post season in his first 6, with year 6 being a complete disappointment. Including this season, Crean will only have made the post season half his time at IU.

The notion that a program like ours should be blowing and going in only 5 seasons after being ATTROCIOUS for a decade with a 3 year period of mediocrity sandwiched in between is not sound logic at all when you look at how even ELITE level coaches have performed when rebuilding programs with more recent success than ours.

All I am saying is that your assessment is premature. 4 years of progression and 1 year of stepping back is far from unheard of, in fact, it's more the norm.

[Ironhawg]

If you are having to teach x's and o's on game day, you are in trouble.

Agreed.  But you absolutely can make adjustments to your game plan based on what is working and what is not working or to eliminate a hole in your game plan the opponent is exploiting.  The times I have been able to listen to MA in a huddle there has been none of these adjustments being made.  He has been doing more inspirational type stuff.  I know that the sample size I have to work off of is very small so I don't read a lot into it.  Just something I noticed.

[ShadowHawg]

Agreed.  But you absolutely can make adjustments to your game plan based on what is working and what is not working or to eliminate a hole in your game plan the opponent is exploiting.  The times I have been able to listen to MA in a huddle there has been none of these adjustments being made.  He has been doing more inspirational type stuff.  I know that the sample size I have to work off of is very small so I don't read a lot into it.  Just something I noticed.

I agree but each team needs different teaching. A team with confidence problems needs the rah rah junk.

That reverse alley oop to Thompson was a called play so he must have been doing some x's and o's.

[choppedporkextrasauce]

Reading this thread will cause braindamage. Another Houston NuttMike Anderson darksider/sunshiner thread.

[Porked Tongue]

You can't put me in either.

[BigHog396]

Examples please. Make sure that they are coaching at a school with a very small recruiting base, 3 POST SEASON berths and 1 win post season win in the previous 10 seasons, had 4 coaches in a decade, one of which backed out of his hiring, a 10 year conference winning pct of 38% previous to his hire, etc.

Calipari at Memphis was an NIT coach in 3 of his first 5 seasons at Memphis with the 5th being a NIT season after unimpressive performances in the NCAA. Tom Crean at Indiana missed had 4 years of no post season in his first 6, with year 6 being a complete disappointment. Including this season, Crean will only have made the post season half his time at IU.

The notion that a program like ours should be blowing and going in only 5 seasons after being ATTROCIOUS for a decade with a 3 year period of mediocrity sandwiched in between is not sound logic at all when you look at how even ELITE level coaches have performed when rebuilding programs with more recent success than ours.

All I am saying is that your assessment is premature. 4 years of progression and 1 year of stepping back is far from unheard of, in fact, it's more the norm.

I don't know where everyone keeps coming up with this FOUR years of progression nonsense?  Mike has only improved our record in 3 of his 5 years here.  Get your facts straight before trying to prop up your weak arguments that are based on incorrect stats.

[OperationRestoreHawgBall]

I disagree. Our floor is pretty bad.

[ArkansasI]

I agree but each team needs different teaching. A team with confidence problems needs the rah rah junk.

That reverse alley oop to Thompson was a called play so he must have been doing some x's and o's.

Shadow, I've been catching up on your posts in this thread. I think you make some good points.

I am interested in your thoughts about our apparent inability to get back into Tulsa, Memphis and Texas for our recruits.

I agree that most current players know nothing about Razorback basketball. However, their coaches should be familiar with our rich history.

Mike is from Alabama, played at Tulsa, and coached at Arkansas during our most competitive years that we depended on talent from Tulsa, Memphis, Texas and, of course, Arkansas.

People (other than Malik Monk) that are related to Mike or are his close acquaintance appear fiercely loyal to him. However, in all his career - during which he hasn't been out of a job more than a few days - he doesn't appear to have developed much of a network to feed him talent. That failure has prevented him from raising his ceiling for success.

What makes you believe anything will change in the next few years?

P.S. I also think you should wait to assess the quality of next year's roster until we know who is on it.

[Hogmatic]

Porked Tongue was smart

[PonderinHog]

Just feels sideways.  I guess that's the only direction you can go with a high floor and a low ceiling.

[BroyledNutts]

Wonder if Shadow supports his position now as then ...

[kid squealer]

Boom!  Brilliant analysis!  Time for change!

[Oliver]

What happened to Porked Tongue?