We either get into a somewhat decent Big East or we have a dynamic out of conf. Schedule. Until then we won't win many tournament games. When u play teams like Rice and UAB in a five day span you're not getting better and if we do struggle with these teams it's because our guys overlook them. I for one couldn't blame em. Pastner can tell them 100 times how good Rice is they may listen but in their mind they're terrible. So when u play 4-5 good teams at the beginning and then go on a 20 game streak of mediocre-terrible teams the team doesn't have anything to look forward to. Thats why most teams that do well in the tourney come from conferences that have to bring it night in and night out. Here's to the tigers getting into somewhat of a Big East..

Couldn't agree more. This was essentially going to be my response to a recent thread about how Memphis seems unable to hold a big lead. I believe it has everything to do with not playing a tough conference schedule where you have to come ready to play every minute of the game. And I agree it has everything to do with a poor tournament preparation which has proven our demise over the last several years.

The players, recruits, the school and the fans all want a much, much more attractive schedule.

Well, a lot of fans do anyway.

A poor conference didn't seem to hurt Cal's teams in the tournament. How was he able to keep our guys focused during conference play enough to win 65 straight CUSA games and then win games against big time teams in the NCAA tourney? Something Pastner can't seem to do. It's not about the conference. It's about the coaching.

If the sacrifice is a couple of losses to some good programs give me a great non-conf. schedule anyday or different conference

Depends on how the coach handles it...

If you let your players slouch, then yes it can be an issue. But I think it gives you an opportunity to develop some players and schemes during the season. The hard thing is keeping intensity high and I think you do that by playing guys who normally don't get a ton of playing time.

(01-14-2013 09:16 PM)Dmalice Wrote:  If the sacrifice is a couple of losses to some good programs give me a great non-conf. schedule anyday or different conference

I agree. I want to be in a tougher conference and have more interesting conference games as well. But it has nothing to do with Pastner's failures in the NCAA tourney.

(01-14-2013 09:10 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  A poor conference didn't seem to hurt Cal's teams in the tournament. How was he able to keep our guys focused during conference play enough to win 65 straight CUSA games and then win games against big time teams in the NCAA tourney? Something Pastner can't seem to do. It's not about the conference. It's about the coaching.

Cal had one great run with a junior-senior led team. hasn't done much more than pastner before or after 2008 (with memphis)and if its not about the conference why don't we see more small conf. schools left in the tourney after the second round.

Are you kidding? Cal had 2 straight Elite 8's, a title game appearance and a Sweet 16. That's 4 runs in this exact same conference. And oh yeah, he won 65 straight CUSA games to boot.

We didn’t schedule high ranked teams THIS year because they would at best been home & home, so we would have to play them NEXT year. Thinking we were gong into a full BE season with the teams that were in conference in February, we would have been at a disadvantage when we entered.

Very simple and not rocket science.

(01-14-2013 09:28 PM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  We didn’t schedule high ranked teams THIS year because they would at best been home & home, so we would have to play them NEXT year. Thinking we were gong into a full BE season with the teams that were in conference in February, we would have been at a disadvantage when we entered.

Very simple and not rocket science.

^this

The difference between those Calipari teams and the Pastner teams is that Calipari's teams would usually win several big games during their non-conference slate while also rolling through C-USA, thus garnering either a #1 or #2 seed and making it easier to get the winning rolling in the Dance against first a crappy opponent, then a slightly better one and then the good ones.

Pastner's teams struggle against the quality non-conference opponents and lose three or so C-USA games and get a poor seeding, thus they have to start out against a quality opponent in the Dance, making it much more difficult to get rolling and advance.

(01-14-2013 09:10 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  A poor conference didn't seem to hurt Cal's teams in the tournament. How was he able to keep our guys focused during conference play enough to win 65 straight CUSA games and then win games against big time teams in the NCAA tourney? Something Pastner can't seem to do. It's not about the conference. It's about the coaching.

With the exit of Louisville & Cincy to the BE, Cal began immediately scheduling a tough OOC schedule (until then Cal's OOC was pitiful too). He then had enough tough OOC games on the schedule, not only early, but even good OOC teams during the conference play period to get his team ready for the tournament. I can't fault JP for his teams conference play, but I do find fault with his weak OOC scheduling that is a must when conference play is so weak. And I think the weak OOC has been the primary reason why our team has failed against the rare top 25 opponent & in the tournament.

(01-14-2013 09:35 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  The difference between those Calipari teams and the Pastner teams is that Calipari's teams would usually win several big games during their non-conference slate while also rolling through C-USA, thus garnering either a #1 or #2 seed and making it easier to get the winning rolling in the Dance against first a crappy opponent, then a slightly better one and then the good ones.

Pastner's teams struggle against the quality non-conference opponents and lose three or so C-USA games and get a poor seeding, thus they have to start out against a quality opponent in the Dance, making it much more difficult to get rolling and advance.

Cals last year his team didn't win anything outside of conference unless you want to count Gonzaga and UT and lost to worse teams early.

(01-14-2013 09:25 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  Are you kidding? Cal had 2 straight Elite 8's, a title game appearance and a Sweet 16. That's 4 runs in this exact same conference. And oh yeah, he won 65 straight CUSA games to boot.

It easier to do such things when you have a first team All-American (CDR), one of the best all-around players in Tiger history (Anderson), a top pick in the draft (Rose) followed by a lottery pick in the draft (Evans). Pastner has talented teams, but they are not at the same level of Calipari's last four seasons.

(01-14-2013 09:35 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  The difference between those Calipari teams and the Pastner teams is that Calipari's teams would usually win several big games during their non-conference slate while also rolling through C-USA, thus garnering either a #1 or #2 seed and making it easier to get the winning rolling in the Dance against first a crappy opponent, then a slightly better one and then the good ones.

Pastner's teams struggle against the quality non-conference opponents and lose three or so C-USA games and get a poor seeding, thus they have to start out against a quality opponent in the Dance, making it much more difficult to get rolling and advance.

This is obvious. The only difference in the Cal and Pastner eras is Cal and Pastner. One could win big games, the other can't. Has nothing to do with schedules.

(01-14-2013 09:39 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:35 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  The difference between those Calipari teams and the Pastner teams is that Calipari's teams would usually win several big games during their non-conference slate while also rolling through C-USA, thus garnering either a #1 or #2 seed and making it easier to get the winning rolling in the Dance against first a crappy opponent, then a slightly better one and then the good ones.

Pastner's teams struggle against the quality non-conference opponents and lose three or so C-USA games and get a poor seeding, thus they have to start out against a quality opponent in the Dance, making it much more difficult to get rolling and advance.

Cals last year his team didn't win anything outside of conference unless you want to count Gonzaga and UT.

That team had 15 top 100 RPI wins. That team was on a 27-game winning streak on Selection Sunday. That team got a #2 seed. Whole different animal compared to any of Pastner's teams.

It is much easier to get that first win and get on a roll in the Dance (even if you are coming out of a weak conference) when you are seeded #1 or #2.

(01-14-2013 09:39 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:35 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  The difference between those Calipari teams and the Pastner teams is that Calipari's teams would usually win several big games during their non-conference slate while also rolling through C-USA, thus garnering either a #1 or #2 seed and making it easier to get the winning rolling in the Dance against first a crappy opponent, then a slightly better one and then the good ones.

Pastner's teams struggle against the quality non-conference opponents and lose three or so C-USA games and get a poor seeding, thus they have to start out against a quality opponent in the Dance, making it much more difficult to get rolling and advance.

This is obvious. The only difference in the Cal and Pastner eras is Cal and Pastner. One could win big games, the other can't. Has nothing to do with schedules.

Calipari during his first five years at Memphis won very few big games, unless you include NIT games as "big games." Calipari was 7-22 (.241) vs. ranked opponents as Memphis head coach from 2000-01 to 2004-05.

(01-14-2013 09:10 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  A poor conference didn't seem to hurt Cal's teams in the tournament. How was he able to keep our guys focused during conference play enough to win 65 straight CUSA games and then win games against big time teams in the NCAA tourney? Something Pastner can't seem to do. It's not about the conference. It's about the coaching.

Antonio Anderson. Seriously. End of discussion re Cal. He would have lost his fair share of those games if AA wasn't there raising the bar and pushing other guys to elevate their game. Cal did not make AA into that person either - otherwise he would make one or all of the players on a team like that all the time. Just look at the year before AA and look at this year.

There are numbers to make the case too, as well as stories from people close to the program.

(01-14-2013 09:39 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:25 PM)Tiger Babs Wrote:  Are you kidding? Cal had 2 straight Elite 8's, a title game appearance and a Sweet 16. That's 4 runs in this exact same conference. And oh yeah, he won 65 straight CUSA games to boot.

It easier to do such things when you have a first team All-American (CDR), one of the best all-around players in Tiger history (Anderson), a top pick in the draft (Rose) followed by a lottery pick in the draft (Evans). Pastner has talented teams, but they are not at the same level of Calipari's last four seasons.

But they are still beyond anything else in the conference. Would Cal have lost any conference games in 11,12, & 13 with the same rosters that Pastner has had?