(03-01-2015 01:03 PM)450bench Wrote:  

From an artist's perspective, the elephant is the coolest thing in the room...esp contrasted with the carpet. love that gray and redorange! Plus I keep wondering how they got him in there in the first place.

(03-01-2015 01:00 PM)cvilletiger Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 10:45 AM)M_Tiger Wrote:  Man, you Pasterettes kill me. Wasn't coaching? In OT, Shaq going in to double coverage to take an ill shot when 2 guards were wide open, only to have a confused Memphis defense give up a wide open 3 on the next possession. And those aren't my words, that came from both announcers live in the game.

Shaq shoudn't have to be coached not to force a shot against a double team. Common sense should take over at some point.

And the clueless defense immediately thereafter that gave up a wide open 3? Still common sense?

(02-28-2015 11:09 PM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  The last 5 minutes of this game was a replay of just about every close game the Tigers have played this year.

Unorganized, disfunctional disorganization.

Exactly.

(03-01-2015 09:32 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  I honestly didn't see any coaching issues from the Tulsa game. Austin going down hurt but Tulsa just had the better players.

That was the only sad thing.

Better players defined by....? When I looked at the scouting report, Memphis has had better recruiting classes and better talent. By defining "better players", do you mean better coaching then?

(03-01-2015 10:01 AM)jgardne Wrote:  I watched on tv. We were physically dominating them on the boards. We were bigger, stronger, and faster. We should've won, and they aren't that good. It's all coaching and system

Exactly

(03-01-2015 12:16 PM)NJ1 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 11:52 AM)jgardne Wrote:  the first thing to be aware of is that you are now running down the program to defend the coach. Ask yourself if a good coach should ever put you in that position.

I would point to Dana Kirk's hiring as the start of the modern era of tiger basketball. That happened in 1979. Since that time we have made the NCAA tournament 21 times and the NIT 8 times and missed the postseason 6 times. 21/35.

Your contention that "historically we are a team that has hung NIT banners" is absurd. The average year for this program is the NCAA tournament, no matter what was hanging from the rafters in the pyramid

I don't feel like I'm "running down the program." I feel like I'm trying to place the current state of things in context (for myself as much as, or more than, for anyone else).

We have NIT banners hanging in the rafters of the FEF. I think the most recent one is from, what, 2001? I don't recall.

21/35 is 60%. That's pretty good. Let's see how Pastner stacks up.

Pastner has been to the NCAA tournament 4 times out of 5 so far. That's 80%, which is better than the post-Kirk historical average.

If we miss the tournament this year (which seems likely), that brings him down to 4/6, or 67%. Still above the post-Kirk historical average (which was your benchmark).

Speaking strictly objectively-- removing the "eye test"-- Is that underachieving relative to the modern era of our program?

Shouldn't the appropriate comparison point be when the NCAA tourney went to 64 teams? But further than that, stats tell something's, but as Dylan said, you don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows. Pastner teams have NOT been well coached over the past six years. All you need to know that is the eyes test. Talent differentials can pad the stats, but the body of work results speak for themselves. CUSA lent itself to gaudy stats and tournament appearances, so if one is actually being objective those stats are called into question.

Personally, all the discussion in the world, detailing possibility after possibility, is really secondary until the elephant in the room is dealt with. It's just an unfortunate reality right now.

Who's job is it to ensure his team is mentally tough to make said free throws (via preparation, training techniques to simulate pressure freethrows while fatigued, strenuous workouts such as sprints) and to take care of the ball and run the plays...

(03-01-2015 12:44 PM)AtlTigerfan Wrote:  I can't pin this on Pastner.

If we had hit a few more free throws and one maybe 2 less turnovers we win the game.

(03-01-2015 01:24 PM)George CantStandYa Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 12:16 PM)NJ1 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 11:52 AM)jgardne Wrote:  the first thing to be aware of is that you are now running down the program to defend the coach. Ask yourself if a good coach should ever put you in that position.

I would point to Dana Kirk's hiring as the start of the modern era of tiger basketball. That happened in 1979. Since that time we have made the NCAA tournament 21 times and the NIT 8 times and missed the postseason 6 times. 21/35.

Your contention that "historically we are a team that has hung NIT banners" is absurd. The average year for this program is the NCAA tournament, no matter what was hanging from the rafters in the pyramid

I don't feel like I'm "running down the program." I feel like I'm trying to place the current state of things in context (for myself as much as, or more than, for anyone else).

We have NIT banners hanging in the rafters of the FEF. I think the most recent one is from, what, 2001? I don't recall.

21/35 is 60%. That's pretty good. Let's see how Pastner stacks up.

Pastner has been to the NCAA tournament 4 times out of 5 so far. That's 80%, which is better than the post-Kirk historical average.

If we miss the tournament this year (which seems likely), that brings him down to 4/6, or 67%. Still above the post-Kirk historical average (which was your benchmark).

Speaking strictly objectively-- removing the "eye test"-- Is that underachieving relative to the modern era of our program?

Shouldn't the appropriate comparison point be when the NCAA tourney went to 64 teams? But further than that, stats tell something's, but as Dylan said, you don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows. Pastner teams have NOT been well coached over the past six years. All you need to know that is the eyes test. Talent differentials can pad the stats, but the body of work results speak for themselves. CUSA lent itself to gaudy stats and tournament appearances, so if one is actually being objective those stats are called into question.

And here's where we get back to the discussion of the 'eyes' test. We humans really are capable of implanting the goal we want into our minds and making everything fit. Some say it's a weakness, but it's also our strength.

In a think tank, for example, it is good to have all sides of a complex issue represented by impassioned folks who have interpreted the data to fit their wants. It's also good to have more neutral folks who listen to the impassioned ones. And let's not forget the decision makers...It's best if these folks are neutral to being hated or loved, do not owe anyone and cannot be bought.

lol. Hard to imagine anything gets decides without biases. Maybe better just to have one wise, fearless feller saying 'make it so' to his capable crew.

(03-01-2015 02:05 PM)NJ1 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 01:24 PM)George CantStandYa Wrote:  All you need to know that is the eyes test.

That's the justification used to keep non-P5 teams out of the NCAA tournament as at-larges every year. Personally, I don't buy it. The "eye test" is highly unreliable due to the previously mentioned confirmation bias (i.e. people will most readily see that which confirms what they already believe).

The confirmation bias is not nearly as misleading as comparing unequal things as equal. Playing in CUSA really is easier than playing in a power 5 conference. Wins really do vary in quality as do losses. Also confirmation bias is lessened by an ever expanding body of work. If anything was influenced by confirmation bias it was the evaluations of Pastner's early years, not the present one. The data is there which if intelligently interpreted yields the same exact conclusion as the eye test. Facts are stubborn things. And Pastner's ability as a high level coach, worthy of a 2.6 million dollar salary, can be argued, but don't mistake that argument for a debate.

(03-01-2015 02:05 PM)NJ1 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 01:24 PM)George CantStandYa Wrote:  All you need to know that is the eyes test.

That's the justification used to keep non-P5 teams out of the NCAA tournament as at-larges every year. Personally, I don't buy it. The "eye test" is highly unreliable due to the previously mentioned confirmation bias (i.e. people will most readily see that which confirms what they already believe).

Don't know if it was ever refuted, but that was the reason given for the Natives not seeing the ships of Columbus when they entered the harbor.

(02-28-2015 11:06 PM)ToldYa Wrote:  Our roster and our program are attractive......

Yes, but the fan base often leaves a lot to be desired. Any new coach who comes in--assuming it comes to that--better win his first ten games or his ass will be on a platter, too. I can see the thread now---"Did we make a mistake????" What happens if the new savior comes in and struggles?

The other thing I'd love to see is a student section near the floor, ala the Izzone at Michigan State, and other locations across the country. Playing in front of indifferent old people in their cutesy little sweaters and full wallets a few hundred feet from the floor may not be the be-all and end-all, but it certainly doesn't help players get jacked up on game day.

I thought Josh did OK to begin with, but when it comes to crunch time it's always the same -- mass confusion.

Why, when you're down 3 with 63 seconds left in OT, you stand there and let the other team run off 33 seconds and then waltz in for a layup is beyond me. Now, we're down 5 with 30 seconds left. Fouling their best freethrow shooter when he crossed the line would've made more sense.

Then, we run off 12 more seconds ourselves before luck finally gives us two breaks in a row -- Kedron hits a three, then we get a 5-second call on the inbounds. Home free, right?

Down only 2 with 18 seconds and the ball? Give it to Burrell, King, or even Shaq to drive the lane for a layup and/or freethrows? Give it to Woodson (39%) or Kedron (33%) for the win? No, we run off the rest of the clock and give it to a 26% 3-point shooter (who was already 0-2 from three) for a 22-footer.

Even with all the aces falling into our lap, we still can't score a point on a play to end the game. And, by the way, Shaq was open under the basket when Nick took the shot.

(02-28-2015 11:06 PM)450bench Wrote:  

Well played.

(03-01-2015 04:23 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  I thought Josh did OK to begin with, but when it comes to crunch time it's always the same -- mass confusion.

Why, when you're down 3 with 63 seconds left in OT, you stand there and let the other team run off 33 seconds and then waltz in for a layup is beyond me. Now, we're down 5 with 30 seconds left. Fouling their best freethrow shooter when he crossed the line would've made more sense.

Then, we run off 12 more seconds ourselves before luck finally gives us two breaks in a row -- Kedron hits a three, then we get a 5-second call on the inbounds. Home free, right?

Down only 2 with 18 seconds and the ball? Give it to Burrell, King, or even Shaq to drive the lane for a layup and/or freethrows? Give it to Woodson (39%) or Kedron (33%) for the win? No, we run off the rest of the clock and give it to a 26% 3-point shooter (who was already 0-2 from three) for a 22-footer.

Even with all the aces falling into our lap, we still can't score a point on a play to end the game. And, by the way, Shaq was open under the basket when Nick took the shot.

"Pass the damn ball inside. Do I have to show you your shooting stats!"

(03-01-2015 10:01 AM)jgardne Wrote:  I watched on tv. We were physically dominating them on the boards. We were bigger, stronger, and faster. We should've won, and they aren't that good. It's all coaching and system

We were as talented and more skilled but they were faster.

we locked up 6th place in the conference

(03-01-2015 07:20 PM)dgold38 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 10:01 AM)jgardne Wrote:  I watched on tv. We were physically dominating them on the boards. We were bigger, stronger, and faster. We should've won, and they aren't that good. It's all coaching and system

We were as talented and more skilled but they were faster.

Their guards were better

(02-28-2015 10:55 PM)M_Tiger Wrote:  First sweep by Tulsa since 1970-71. To go with first home loss to SMU since '53, and first home loss to Tulane since '92.

On top of that, the announcers couldn't even believe Shaq made a silly offensive call into double coverage, then the team immediately had no clue what to do on defense and allowed an open 3. Josh must have grabbed the wrong number card to hold up. Pure coaching; enough said.

Feel like you're getting $3m worth of coaching each year? Still don't agree, Pastner-ettes? I have 2 things to put on your mind about our coach:

1. Memphis fans think Pastner isn't the right man for the job? He's taken Memphis to 4 straight NCAA tourneys and having a down year. In 2015. So what?
- Lost to Christian Bros - never happened before...ever!
- Partner's wins vs good teams are far and few between...why his team's go out early in NCAA tourney. His teams are overwhelmed by decent teams in postseason play.
- Lost to ECU was worst lost "RPI wise" since 1990.
- He gets his wins against crap teams. He is 6-24 against top 25 teams as of 2-26-14 - we don't have a chance when we play a good team and get smoked when we lose.
- After home loss against SMU, Memphis is 0-8 against Top 50 RPI this year.
- Half the players on the Memphis roster don’t belong at Memphis if Memphis is the program it purports to be. Bottom line.
- Swept by SMU.....Twice this year?
- Atmosphere is dead inside the Forum. Worst in years. FANS DONT CARE.
- First sweep by Tulsa since 1970-71. To go with first home loss to SMU since '53, and first home loss to Tulane since '92.
- Most home losses in 1 season since 2004.
- Worst avg home attendance in 15 years.

2. But wait...Memphis fans expect too much. I mean...you're Memphis. What makes you think this is an elite basketball program?
- Memphis plays in one of the best arenas in the country.
- Memphis can easily pay top dollar for the right coach. Pastner makes as much as top performers...Caliapri, Pitino, etc.
- Ranked 10th in total wins over last 25 years of ALL Division 1 basketball programs.
- Ranked in top 5 nationally in both total attendance and avg per game.

So if you say Memphis isn't an ideal job and deserves better than Pastner, your reasoning is what?

Did you have any thoughts of your own after lifting Wolken's tweet?