Myths Dispelled This Season

[The_Iceman]

We are certainly on an upward trend. Until we go backwards I'm not complaining. WPS

If we lose Portis and Qualls, and go backwards, you will complain? Or will you wait to see how we respond in 2016-2017?

[Atlhogfan1]

I wonder if you expressed this sentiment on the football board?

Yes he has in some fashion many times.  You'll have to take him off your football lovin' possible racist list. 

[urkillnmesmalls]

At what point in American sport did "progress" topple "achievement" as the ultimate measure of a team or a coach?

Progress can describe the journey from futility to mediocrity.  It's not necessarily the precursor to ultimate success.  It's a journey, not a destination.  It can reach its zenith with a particular group of players, or a weaker than normal conference or schedule, then flatten out or trend downward when the favorable conditions change.   

Progress is more easily attained when a coach takes over a poor program because even if he raises it to "fair" it's better than when he started.  Danny Ford achieved progress.  Houston Nutt furthered the progress.  Neither really achieved anything. 

If the progress continues indefinitely, of course, achievement will ultimately be attained.  We all understand that.  That said, the two words are not synonyms.  No team gets its name engraved on a trophy because it "progressed".  If some fans want to celebrate progress, that's fine.  It's not a requirement of fandom, however, to be satisfied before success itself is ultimately achieved.

If your sentiment is carried throughout this post, then it should read, "Ultimate success is achieved."  If that's your measuring stick, then you're saying a NC is your measure of success. 

In a previous post, you outlined some HOF coaches who took over programs that were performing poorly, and brought them back in 2 or 3 years, and you implied that MA is actually overdue and slow with his improvement. 

Every fan base but one will be disappointed in their program every year if the measuring sttick is a NC.  This team didn't have NC caliber talent, but they showed they can compete with teams that do.  For me, that's a measuring stick in itself, and while I may not love MA's total commitment to his "system" and I think he should be willing to alter things more often based on the situation, I have to acknowledge the consistent improvement. 

Apparently...you choose not to.  Duly noted. 

[urkillnmesmalls]

Bad example.... In 6 tears he has finished Elite 8, Final Four, NC, NIT 1st round after losing NOEL to injury, NC Runner UP and so far undefeated this season. Portis is a special player and will be hard to replace and Qualls has a will to win that pushes the team forward.

Not a bad example.  Based on where their program is talent wise and resource wise, they should be Final Four or NC game EVERY season.  We're not lining up with that level of talent, yet we beat them in recent seasons. 

My point is, our fans don't have to love MA to acknowledge the consistent improvement to this point.  Will we dip next season if Qualls and Portis don't return....probably so, and it will be how we do in the few years following that which will define MA's true coaching ability IMO.  All we can do is wait and see on all of that. 

What we don't have to wait and see is that some people apparently expected us to beat a team of McDonald's All American's this season, and they're unhappy with where we finished.   

[EastexHawg]

If your sentiment is carried throughout this post, then it should read, "Ultimate success is achieved."  If that's your measuring stick, then you're saying a NC is your measure of success. 

How about if I write my posts and you write yours?

I didn't say the only way a team or a program can be successful is to win the national championship.  Earlier in this thread I mentioned a three year stretch from 1977-1979 when the Hogs went a combined 83-11 overall and 44-4 in conference.  They made three straight NCAA tournament appearances (two of those years when the field was 32, not 64) with a Final Four and an Elite Eight included.

I would say Eddie Sutton and those Razorback teams were successful despite not winning the national title.  They not only won three straight conference championships, but two of them won games against big time opponents (UCLA, Louisville, Notre Dame) in the NCAA tournament.  One of them even won a game at the Final Four.

Compare and contrast those seasons to the one that just concluded and you'll see why I find one to be more "successful" than the other.

[Swinesong1]

Yes he has in some fashion many times.  You'll have to take him off your football lovin' possible racist list.

Well look who's here!  How you doing? 

[Cresthog]

How about if I write my posts and you write yours?

I didn't say the only way a team or a program can be successful is to win the national championship.  Earlier in this thread I mentioned a three year stretch from 1977-1979 when the Hogs went a combined 83-11 overall and 44-4 in conference.  They made three straight NCAA tournament appearances (two of those years when the field was 32, not 64) with a Final Four and an Elite Eight included.

I would say Eddie Sutton and those Razorback teams were successful despite not winning the national title.  They not only won three straight conference championships, but two of them won games against big time opponents (UCLA, Louisville, Notre Dame) in the NCAA tournament.  One of them even won a game at the Final Four.

Compare and contrast those seasons to the one that just concluded and you'll see why I find one to be more "successful" than the other.

Ok so at least we now understand you're going to be "that guy" comparing 1970s basketball to now.

You honestly don't think finishing 2nd in conference and 2nd in the conference tournament should be considered successful?

[southarkhog06]

Ok so at least we now understand you're going to be "that guy" comparing 1970s basketball to now.

You honestly don't think finishing 2nd in conference and 2nd in the conference tournament should be considered successful?

don't try to reason with him he thinks he is better than every coach on the hill.

[Danny J]

I wonder if you expressed this sentiment on the football board?

HA!!! Was about to post the same thing.

[HSVhogfan2]

How about if I write my posts and you write yours?

I didn't say the only way a team or a program can be successful is to win the national championship.  Earlier in this thread I mentioned a three year stretch from 1977-1979 when the Hogs went a combined 83-11 overall and 44-4 in conference.  They made three straight NCAA tournament appearances (two of those years when the field was 32, not 64) with a Final Four and an Elite Eight included.

I would say Eddie Sutton and those Razorback teams were successful despite not winning the national title.  They not only won three straight conference championships, but two of them won games against big time opponents (UCLA, Louisville, Notre Dame) in the NCAA tournament.  One of them even won a game at the Final Four.

Compare and contrast those seasons to the one that just concluded and you'll see why I find one to be more "successful" than the other.

So Nolan holds the record for wins at AR, won a NC, and went to 3 Final Fours, mostly playing in a much more difficult conference. Would you not say that Nolan was much more successful than Eddie?

[Biggus Piggus]

So Nolan holds the record for wins at AR, won a NC, and went to 3 Final Fours, mostly playing in a much more difficult conference. Would you not say that Nolan was much more successful than Eddie?

And cleaned up the mess Sutton left behind. Absolutely.

[Science Fiction Greg]

This is silly.  Some people are confusing the team's performance with the job the coach is doing.  Just because the team doesn't achieve everything we as fans want doesn't mean the coach is doing a bad job.  There is variance in the sport.  You can do a literally perfect job coaching a team and still lose in the first round.  And no, it wouldn't necessarily be a talent issue.  It's variance.  Sometimes the other team gets really hot when you get really cold.  Sometimes the ball just doesn't bounce your way.

Some of you people would fire a theoretically perfect coach because he got unlucky a couple of times if all you do is look at results.  YES, you can want, desire, hope, shoot for, all of the above, great tournament success.  No, it's just not going to happen every year, no matter how good the coach is.  If you evaluate the job a coach is doing on something with high variance and a small sample size, your results will be poor.  You will be a poor evaluator.  This is not complicated.  Our sample size is basically two right now.  We've had two legitimate seasons.  The first two can be thrown out (people that don't understand why that is know nothing about this process and can be ignored).  Last season and this season is what we should evaluate on.  Two pretty good seasons.  Last season ended poorly.  Probably should've done a little better, but it wasn't so far off the mark to be concerning.  This year was great.  Got a little unlucky in the NCAA tournament (Portis WTH-ing all over the place, no luck in having key players getting hot when needed (Bell), unfortunate time to start randomly turning the ball over, etc.)--maybe due to inexperience in the tournament.  Whatever, it happens.  The trend is clear, basing your evaluations of the coach's performance so far on anything but that is just silly.  Stop it.

Yes, as a fan, you can WANT and DESIRE deep runs in the tournament.  You can't, however, base an evaluation of the coach's performance on it (short term. maybe after 5+ samples, coupled with other data you could draw some conclusions.  2 seasons is just not enough.  And it is just 2 seasons, not 4).

[HSVhogfan2]

Successful?  No.
Improving?  Yes.
Hopeful for a better result in coming years?  Yes.

So in 1976-77 when Sutton went something like 28-2, 16-0, and lost in the first round of the NCAA, was that Improving or successful?

[HSVhogfan2]

Here we go - Sutton at Arkansas:

1974–75   Arkansas   17–9   11–3   2nd   no tournament
1975–76   Arkansas   19–9   9–7   4th   no tournament
1976–77   Arkansas   26–2   16–0   1st   NCAA First Round
1977–78   Arkansas   32–4   14–2   T–1st   NCAA Final Four
1978–79   Arkansas   25–5   13–3   2nd   NCAA Elite Eight
1979–80   Arkansas   21–8   13–3   2nd   NCAA First Round
1980–81   Arkansas   24–8   13–3   1st   NCAA Sweet Sixteen
1981–82   Arkansas   23–6   12–4   1st   NCAA First Round
1982–83   Arkansas   26–4   14–2   2nd   NCAA Sweet Sixteen
1983–84   Arkansas   25–7   14–2   2nd   NCAA First Round
1984–85   Arkansas   22–13   10–6   2nd   NCAA Second Round

So, as I posted earlier about Nolans records, would you say he was more successful than Sutton?

I am just trying to get some perspective from some fans that are more astute and understand basketball better than me.

[porkinsons disease]

Yes he has in some fashion many times.  You'll have to take him off your football lovin' possible racist list. 

Nailed it...+1000

[HSVhogfan2]

So you are comparing MA with arguably the greatest tourny coach that's come along since John Wooden? LOL.

Your Wiki skills are impressive, however.

[HSVhogfan2]

The only record that matters is in the NCAA. That's where MA is behind, IMO. The first 2 years he dealt with a lot of off the court crap. If MA had gone to the NCAA last year, I would say it's right where it should be.

AR lost to the best 4 seed in the toughest region in the tourny. I think 6th or 7th most wins in school history. Unless you are grading on some strange curve I'm not aware of, that is a successful season.

The NCAAs, except for 2 years, was where Sutton underachieved so much. That's all Nolan cared about.

[EastexHawg]

So you are comparing MA with arguably the greatest tourny coach that's come along since John Wooden? LOL.

Coach K?
Bobby Knight?
Rick Pitino?

Izzo is an outstanding coach, but he's not the best tournament coach since Wooden.

As for the Eddie/Nolan thing, I mentioned Sutton's records because I had earlier referenced Arkansas' overall athletic prowess over a three year stretch ending in 1979.  Of course Nolan was an outstanding coach, too.

[HSVhogfan2]

Coach K?
Bobby Knight?
Rick Pitino?

Izzo is an outstanding coach, but he's not the best tournament coach since Wooden.

As for the Eddie/Nolan thing, I mentioned Sutton's records because I had earlier referenced Arkansas' overall athletic prowess over a three year stretch ending in 1979.  Of course Nolan was an outstanding coach, too.

I Just like the fact that Izzo can come in with a lower seed team (like this year) and seems to always have them playing at the highest level possible. When he gets beat, it's usually because the team he is playing is much more talented.

[twistitup]

Myth # 15

We can consistently sell out Bud Walton w/o general admission beer sales.

In reality, more games are on tv and people are busier than ever. More entertainment value comes from alcohol consumption combined with a quality product on the floor. 50% of this equation has been solved...

It's time for beer sales at all UofA sporting events, it's just comforting to consume a cold beer while watching sports.

[al2305]

And just to put all the info together:  Anderson at Arkansas

2011–12   Arkansas   18–14   6–10   9th   
2012–13   Arkansas   19–13   10–8   7th   
2013–14   Arkansas   22–12   10–8   5th   NIT Second Round
2014–15   Arkansas   27–9           13–5   2nd   NCAA Round of 32

That (obviously) is an improving record. Let's hope it continues.

We obviously need qualls and portis to stay in order for that to continue next year. But if they leave I'd be surprised to see a big drop off. Hopefully regardless of their decision our overall talent and athletic ability  will continue to improve and be better equipped to play this style of basketball.  I think we were still a couple of athletes short of that this year to be able to press and run more effectively. 
No matter what though best record in 20years has got to mean something.

[Science Fiction Greg]

We obviously need qualls and portis to stay in order for that to continue next year. But if they leave I'd be surprised to see a big drop off. Hopefully regardless of their decision our overall talent and athletic ability  will continue to improve and be better equipped to play this style of basketball.  I think we were still a couple of athletes short of that this year to be able to press and run more effectively. 
No matter what though best record in 20years has got to mean something.

People always seem to be surprised when new players step in and play well after stars leave.  At one point the fanbase was convinced we would be terrible when Marshawn Powell and BJ Young left.  We were actually better the following year.  Of course, I think we will be better with them than without them, but it isn't all gloom and doom if they leave.

[al2305]

People always seem to be surprised when new players step in and play well after stars leave.  At one point the fanbase was convinced we would be terrible when Marshawn Powell and BJ Young left.  We were actually better the following year.  Of course, I think we will be better with them than without them, but it isn't all gloom and doom if they leave.

I agree but in this case I dont see us being able to absorb the loss of the POY and the best athlete on the floor every night without some drop off.  But if they do leave that would mean more playin time for the incoming freshmen and would probably develop them that much faster so it would balance itself out in the long run I think. 

[urkillnmesmalls]

How about if I write my posts and you write yours?

I didn't say the only way a team or a program can be successful is to win the national championship.  Earlier in this thread I mentioned a three year stretch from 1977-1979 when the Hogs went a combined 83-11 overall and 44-4 in conference.  They made three straight NCAA tournament appearances (two of those years when the field was 32, not 64) with a Final Four and an Elite Eight included.

I would say Eddie Sutton and those Razorback teams were successful despite not winning the national title.  They not only won three straight conference championships, but two of them won games against big time opponents (UCLA, Louisville, Notre Dame) in the NCAA tournament.  One of them even won a game at the Final Four.

Compare and contrast those seasons to the one that just concluded and you'll see why I find one to be more "successful" than the other.

...on a half court once in a lifetime shot.  Also, those teams had arguably the best players to ever suit up as Razorbacks in the triplets. 

It's obvious how you feel, but success HAS been achieved this season.  Maybe it didn't meet your standard, but you're a very small minority.  Good luck convincing many people that this season wasn't a success. 

[twistitup]

Myth #16- It's all about the shoes.

In reality, play continues with or without your sneakers. We must have all the proper laces in all the right places

[EastexHawg]

...on a half court once in a lifetime shot. 

We actually knocked Louisville out of the tournament twice in a 2-3 year span.  The game I'm talking about was a double digit Razorback win in the Sweet Sixteen round in 1979.  The U.S. Reed shot to knock out the defending national champions came a couple of years later.

[urkillnmesmalls]

We actually knocked Louisville out of the tournament twice in a 2-3 year span.  The game I'm talking about was a double digit Razorback win in the Sweet Sixteen round in 1979.  The U.S. Reed shot to knock out the defending national champions came a couple of years later.

Ahh...well, then I stand corrected. 

Just for giggles, I looked at Nolan's record that was posted above.  In his fourth season, his record was not as good as MA's.  Because most UA fans acknowledge that our ONLY NC in basketball came with him as the head coach, I'm going to hold out judgement on the long term prospects for MA rather than your pessimistic viewpoint that we should have gone further in the tournament than we have at this point. 

It's cool if our definitions of success are different.  Thing is...even the most Elite coaches don't win the NC every year, minus Wooden.  Oh, and there's that little issue of finding out years later that his players were receiving all kinds of inappropriate benefits that he knew nothing about.   

If we win a NC under MA, it will be because we accrue a very high level of talent and they exhibit teamwork and chemistry. It won't be because he makes the best in game adjustments in the business.  I may get frustrated and yell at the TV, but I've accepted that as being how it's going to be.  In truth, I think our chances of excelling are every bit as good with his system as it would be with Self's or anyone else that some fans think we "should" have gotten instead. 

[MikePiazza]

Ahh...well, then I stand corrected. 

Just for giggles, I looked at Nolan's record that was posted above.  In his fourth season, his record was not as good as MA's.  Because most UA fans acknowledge that our ONLY NC in basketball came with him as the head coach, I'm going to hold out judgement on the long term prospects for MA rather than your pessimistic viewpoint that we should have gone further in the tournament than we have at this point. 

It's cool if our definitions of success are different.  Thing is...even the most Elite coaches don't win the NC every year, minus Wooden.  Oh, and there's that little issue of finding out years later that his players were receiving all kinds of inappropriate benefits that he knew nothing about.   

If we win a NC under MA, it will be because we accrue a very high level of talent and they exhibit teamwork and chemistry. It won't be because he makes the best in game adjustments in the business.  I may get frustrated and yell at the TV, but I've accepted that as being how it's going to be.  In truth, I think our chances of excelling are every bit as good with his system as it would be with Self's or anyone else that some fans think we "should" have gotten instead.

Comparable record. Nolan went 25-7 while Mike went 27-9. Both teams lost by nine in the second round to a team that is traditionally strong in the tournament (Louisville & UNC).

[Cresthog]

Comparable record. Nolan went 25-7 while Mike went 27-9. Both teams lost by nine in the second round by nine to a team that is traditionally strong in the tournament (Louisville & UNC).

DUDE.

2 wins is the difference between success and failure.

Actually both season were crap since we didn't win it all and weren't competing with college bball's elite.

[jvanhorn]

My only problem with Anderson is that he places very little emphasis on defense.  You can't beat good teams like that.  That is why Missouri was never a problem for Kansas when he was there.  Offense is all well and good but, as Beleima found out, if you want to beat really good teams you better have a damn good defense.  Teams like Wichita State would just eat us alive.  His defense is predicated on pressuring the other teams into mistakes and turnovers.   Well guess what really good teams can handle pressure and don't make mistakes and turnovers.  Anderson can have a lot of winning seasons with his style, but it would take a miracle to ever get to a elite eight or final four.  Defense wins games in every sport.  Check out the Royals with their speed and defense and a very average offense.  If you look at his record at Missouri he won a lot of games, just not ones against really good teams.

[Biggus Piggus]

My only problem with Anderson is that he places very little emphasis on defense.

This. Is. Idiotic.

[Cresthog]

This. Is. Idiotic.

What about the part directly comparing Beliema/Football to basketball?

[MountieDawg]

Not a bad example.  Based on where their program is talent wise and resource wise, they should be Final Four or NC game EVERY season.  We're not lining up with that level of talent, yet we beat them in recent seasons. 

My point is, our fans don't have to love MA to acknowledge the consistent improvement to this point.  Will we dip next season if Qualls and Portis don't return....probably so, and it will be how we do in the few years following that which will define MA's true coaching ability IMO.  All we can do is wait and see on all of that. 

What we don't have to wait and see is that some people apparently expected us to beat a team of McDonald's All American's this season, and they're unhappy with where we finished.   

Cal has 1 year he went to the NIT and one year the Elite 8 and the rest Final Fours or better... You did say down years...

[hawgmasta]

We are a bad rebounding team. Bobby Portis is tied in lead for most rebounds in the NCAA tournament after the first weekend!

[jared72404]

This is silly.  Some people are confusing the team's performance with the job the coach is doing.  Just because the team doesn't achieve everything we as fans want doesn't mean the coach is doing a bad job.  There is variance in the sport.  You can do a literally perfect job coaching a team and still lose in the first round.  And no, it wouldn't necessarily be a talent issue.  It's variance.  Sometimes the other team gets really hot when you get really cold.  Sometimes the ball just doesn't bounce your way.

Some of you people would fire a theoretically perfect coach because he got unlucky a couple of times if all you do is look at results.  YES, you can want, desire, hope, shoot for, all of the above, great tournament success.  No, it's just not going to happen every year, no matter how good the coach is.  If you evaluate the job a coach is doing on something with high variance and a small sample size, your results will be poor.  You will be a poor evaluator.  This is not complicated.  Our sample size is basically two right now.  We've had two legitimate seasons.  The first two can be thrown out (people that don't understand why that is know nothing about this process and can be ignored).  Last season and this season is what we should evaluate on.  Two pretty good seasons.  Last season ended poorly.  Probably should've done a little better, but it wasn't so far off the mark to be concerning.  This year was great.  Got a little unlucky in the NCAA tournament (Portis WTH-ing all over the place, no luck in having key players getting hot when needed (Bell), unfortunate time to start randomly turning the ball over, etc.)--maybe due to inexperience in the tournament.  Whatever, it happens.  The trend is clear, basing your evaluations of the coach's performance so far on anything but that is just silly.  Stop it.

Yes, as a fan, you can WANT and DESIRE deep runs in the tournament.  You can't, however, base an evaluation of the coach's performance on it (short term. maybe after 5+ samples, coupled with other data you could draw some conclusions.  2 seasons is just not enough.  And it is just 2 seasons, not 4).

This is a great post.

[jvanhorn]

My only problem with Anderson is that he places very little emphasis on defense.  You can't beat good teams like that.  That is why Missouri was never a problem for Kansas when he was there.  Offense is all well and good but, as Beleima found out, if you want to beat really good teams you better have a damn good defense.  Teams like Wichita State would just eat us alive.  His defense is predicated on pressuring the other teams into mistakes and turnovers.   Well guess what really good teams can handle pressure and don't make mistakes and turnovers.  Anderson can have a lot of winning seasons with his style, but it would take a miracle to ever get to a elite eight or final four.  Defense wins games in every sport.  Check out the Royals with their speed and defense and a very average offense.  If you look at his record at Missouri he won a lot of games, just not ones against really good teams.

I am really sorry to see Portis and Qualls leave, I wish them the best of luck, but it really doesn't change what I stated above.   He will still beat average and some good teams, just not teams on a higher level than that, but that has been his MO for years.  It makes it a little harder to do without the above two, but it won't be all that different either if he gets some good play out of his new players.  He is what he is.

[WarPig88]

I am really sorry to see Portis and Qualls leave, I wish them the best of luck, but it really doesn't change what I stated above.   He will still beat average and some good teams, just not teams on a higher level than that, but that has been his MO for years.  It makes it a little harder to do without the above two, but it won't be all that different either if he gets some good play out of his new players.  He is what he is.

Didn't we sweep Kentucky just two years ago?

[Sharky]

This style is outdated, can't win in the SEC, and can't win on the road: This broadcast was stuck on repeat for 3 years. Scoreboard.

This staff can't recruit: Scoreboard. Also, we have 2 Top 50 recruits headed to the Hill next season. We've missed on recruiting quality guards, but we seem to have finally stopped the bleeding with the addition of Beard and Whitt.

Mike only wants to recruit athletes and not basketball players: This is one of the dumber myths I've seen in the past few years, but it was a very popular one. Due to the fact that we were in a complete rebuild, we did not instantly fill our recruiting classes with "basketball players" AKA 5* recruits. We had to fill them with "athletes" AKA average basketball players. Hopefully some have seen the light here.

Stars can't shine here: Portis and Qualls demolished this one. The best players will be given opportunities just like every other style of basketball.

Above all else, I was so happy to see the incessant drivel about the "system" reduced to what it should be, i.e. the valid complaints are addressed but not every second of every loss is attributed to it.

Unanswered "myth" or legit criticism: In the modern era of college basketball, can CMA's system beat a team with outstanding guards ... or is the ceiling with CMA around Elite 8?

[snortman]

Didn't we sweep Kentucky just two years ago?

And they demolished us this year, Twice. And we were suppose to be better. So what's your point?

[BigNasty]

And they demolished us this year, Twice. And we were suppose to be better. So what's your point?

The Kentucky team we swept last year went to the NCAA title game that season.  He was making that reply to a poster who said Anderson's team only defeats average teams and some good teams but nothing higher than that.

A team who is in the title game is at a higher level than some random "good" team.  The point was Anderson's teams have defeated high level teams.

[Atlhogfan1]

The Kentucky team we swept last year went to the NCAA title game that season.  He was making that reply to a poster who said Anderson's team only defeats average teams and some good teams but nothing higher than that.

A team who is in the title game is at a higher level than some random "good" team.  The point was Anderson's teams have defeated high level teams.

The 2014 UK team was playing awful when we played them the second time. Ridiculously easy to defend in that stretch on first shot, no perimeter offense and not much defensive effort. That changed a few games later heading into postseason.

[jesterzzn]

Stan's firing was a mistake - his style was more methodical / fundamental and maybe we let him go too soon.

Wrong.....I'm loving old school hog ball

Stan's firing was mishandled entirely, and in hindsight perhaps the second biggest mistake of Frank's career.  Heath wasn't winning big, but at least he was winning.

I am glad Mike is here, but I would have taken five more years of Heath over Pelphrey.

[jesterzzn]

Unanswered "myth" or legit criticism: In the modern era of college basketball, can CMA's system beat a team with outstanding guards ... or is the ceiling with CMA around Elite 8?

The team with the better guards usually wins regardless the system.

[pigture perfect]

I'm still not sure many myths are dispelled or if we got a few breaks that we didn't get the previous years. Here's to Hope.

[HognitiveDissonance]

People are always getting ahead of themselves. This thread was started as a kinda 'told you so' about the coach. Now the bottom has fallen out and the other side is coming back.

Both 'sides' of any subject could learn to slow it down a bit. The tide can turn.

My position on Mike hasn't changed since he was hired. Good coach, not great. Is that a compliment or a criticism? You decide. Me, I think it's mostly a compliment; he's obviously a good coach and has proven that at multiple places. If your standard is the Final 4(a la Eddie or Nolan) then you may be disappointed. Those could be called 'great' coaches.   I'll be the first to come here and eat crow if we reach that rarefied air.

[Breems]

Unanswered "myth" or legit criticism: In the modern era of college basketball, can CMA's system beat a team with outstanding guards ... or is the ceiling with CMA around Elite 8?

There is no "ceiling."

Mike was 7 points from a Final Four, so his ceiling could easily be a national championship.

The ceiling of Bobby Portis and Michael Qualls is what mattered this year, and the ceiling of the players that Mike recruits in the future is all that will matter in the years to come.

[Breems]

People are always getting ahead of themselves. This thread was started as a kinda 'told you so' about the coach. Now the bottom has fallen out and the other side is coming back.

Both 'sides' of any subject could learn to slow it down a bit. The tide can turn.

Nope.

This thread was about dispelling myths about Mike's "system", all of which will still hold up if we have a losing season next year.

It actually serves to de-emphasize the fame around Mike Anderson. It's about recruiting and always has been.

[jkstock04]

The Jumpball "game forum" is a great way to track the game if you are traveling or can't watch. Nothing in there but pertinent, game info.

Comical. +1

I like to scroll through the game threads after the games are over with for a chuckle.

[intelligence]

We have the talent to compete with $Kentucky$

[Sharky]

The team with the better guards usually wins regardless the system.

Probably true. It just seems we live the sword (press) and die by the sword. Teams with great guards will always push the ball and find number advantages, open lanes, and easy baskets. We were better at backing off the press this year, but our half court game is still a weakness because we prefer not to play that way.

Still, we're crazy fun to watch. I'm just not sure CMA can take us to to a FF or CG. Hope I'm wrong. Timeouts, touch fouls, and euro-ball option plus ease of overseas communication all work against us (safety net for players like Qualls to enter draft). I don't think CMA needs superstars to build something special--our system works well when we share. Can we clone a few Qualls?