If i'm not mistaken during Vannetta's time coaching there wasn't a NCAA Tourney, wasn't it just the NIT then with just 32 teams...I'm not sure when the NCAA took over..

(01-24-2013 11:53 AM)tigergg Wrote:  If i'm not mistaken during Vannetta's time coaching there wasn't a NCAA Tourney, wasn't it just the NIT then with just 32 teams...I'm not sure when the NCAA took over..

There was both---NCAA and NIT in Coach Vanatta's time.

However, there was more prestige attached to the NIT then.

According to Tripp's Tigers, Vanatta's record included:

Bob Vanatta (Career: 109-34)

NIT
3-1
0-1
0-1
1-1

NCAAA
0-1

By season:
(24-6)
(15-7)
(17-6)
(18-5)
(20-3)
(15-7)

(01-24-2013 12:02 PM)dan o Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 11:53 AM)tigergg Wrote:  If i'm not mistaken during Vannetta's time coaching there wasn't a NCAA Tourney, wasn't it just the NIT then with just 32 teams...I'm not sure when the NCAA took over..

There was both---NCAA and NIT in Coach Vanatta's time.

However, there was more prestige attached to the NIT then.

According to Tripp's Tigers, Vanatta's record included:

Bob Vanatta (Career: 109-34)

NIT
3-1
0-1
0-1
1-1

NCAAA
0-1

By season:
(24-6)
(15-7)
(17-6)
(18-5)
(20-3)
(15-7)

Yea I knew the NIT was the main tourney sometime in that timeframe..thx

(01-24-2013 09:28 AM)neillis Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 12:16 AM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 03:36 PM)neillis Wrote:  I had no idea Cal was 2-9 verses top 25 teams between 2000-2003. For some reason I thought he had a much better record than that. What were those two wins? Illinois and....?

He beat #7 Illinois at the Pyramid by 3 and won @ #4 Louisville by 7, both during the 2002-03 season.

Interesting. I remember the Illinois game, but since I was only 15 and had so many other things on my mind back then, don't remember too many games.

I'm guessing that same statistic was one of the main motivations of Cal's detractors at the time, would I be right? I also wonder whether it would still be such a big argument if Elliot Williams hit that three instead of the back iron.

Yes. His poor record against top 25 opponents was brought up quite often during those early years, very often by me. Calipari was just 7-22 (.241) vs. ranked opponents during his first five seasons at Memphis. Not nearly as bad as Pastner, but pretty crappy still.

(01-24-2013 12:02 PM)dan o Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 11:53 AM)tigergg Wrote:  If i'm not mistaken during Vannetta's time coaching there wasn't a NCAA Tourney, wasn't it just the NIT then with just 32 teams...I'm not sure when the NCAA took over..

There was both---NCAA and NIT in Coach Vanatta's time.

However, there was more prestige attached to the NIT then.

According to Tripp's Tigers, Vanatta's record included:

Bob Vanatta (Career: 109-34)

NIT
3-1
0-1
0-1
1-1

NCAAA
0-1

By season:
(24-6)
(15-7)
(17-6)
(18-5)
(20-3)
(15-7)

Both tournaments were a big deal by the time Vanatta became head coach, but the NCAA tournament had moved ahead. Back then, there were actually three postseason tournaments, the NCAA tournament, the NIT and NAIA tournament. The NAIA began in 1937, the NIT in 1938 and the NCAA tournament in 1939. The NIT was a big deal because of its connection to NYC and Madison Square Garden. It was still an incredible honor to get into the NIT during the 1950s, but the NCAA tournament was starting to move ahead thanks in part to championships won by schools like Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina and Indiana.

Believe it or not, there were other top teams of that time that are not the familiar names of today.

(01-24-2013 08:57 PM)dan o Wrote:  Believe it or not, there were other top teams of that time that are not the familiar names of today.

CCNY, Holy Cross and San Francisco just to name a few.

(01-24-2013 09:25 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 08:57 PM)dan o Wrote:  Believe it or not, there were other top teams of that time that are not the familiar names of today.

CCNY, Holy Cross and San Francisco just to name a few.

Bradley, Dayton and Western Kentucky, etc

(01-24-2013 01:36 AM)Chi-Town Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 11:52 PM)dan o Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 10:49 PM)Chi-Town Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 02:19 PM)Tampa Bay Tiger Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 11:33 AM)Chi-Town Wrote:  Why don't all of the other C-USA coaches do it?

Perhaps it's because The University of Memphis annually spends approximately $2,000,000 more on basketball, or 40k more per player, than the 2nd weathiest program in the league. Just a thought.

http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/blog...Conference

I would counter by saying that a number of coaches in C-USA over the past 4 years have had a decided advantage over Josh in prior experience and/or pedigree. For the most part, he has beat them all at an alarming rate for a first time head coach. I'm sure the facilities had something to do with it, but if $$ is your only argument, it is a very poor argument made.

Respectfully disagree.

Since you repeated such words as "decided advantage" and "pedigree" from my previous response to you, it would appear that you've already read my references to budgets, facilities, "pedigree," etc that have clearly provided the Tigers with a "decided advantage" on their way to becoming top dog in this conference.

And, it would seem rather obvious that you are bucking common knowledge by proclaiming wins over CUSA teams not named Memphis as worthy of some great and miraculous feat.

What is more noteworthy and unexpected is the rare loss to a CUSA team.

We are all excited and pleased about Josh's record in CUSA. But, much of the free world has long since recognized that this conference is pretty much Memphis and the 10 or so dwarfs.

Regarding your point about "experienced coaches" in CUSA, I would remind you that Mike Davis, Coach Doa, Larry Eustachey, Jeff Lebo and others are/were certainly well experienced.

But, that experience, as touted by you, hasn't done a dang thing for them as far as being successful enough to get into the NCAA tournament or even to win CUSA.

So, I don't think being an experienced coach in CUSA necessarily qualifies you for much of anything but......being experienced.

Josh is a great person and will no doubt become a great coach sooner rather than later. I believe he is the right man for the job and am confident about our future with him as coach.

But, I disagree with overplaying our record in CUSA. Josh will soon have much bigger fish to fry and wins to achieve.

In my humble opinion

Thanks for responding so fervently, but most of that doesn't make sense towards the original post.

Perhaps just a few [of many] more recent posts by other fans can help help explain just why it is common knowledge that playing in CUSA is a major factor toward racking up lots of wins.

RE: An observation to ponder
In terms of beating teams with "lesser" talent, it's no secret that Memphis has much more talent overall than every C-USA teams. That being said, if you look at the players from our last few opponents, they have some serious talent.

RE: An observation to ponder
Look, we got 10 Conference games and 3 potential tournament games left and we don't have to ever pump CUSA teams ever again. Cal did it and Josh does it so lets ride these games out and endure a little more and be done with it. Even CUSA II in a few years will definitely better than this

Reasonably satisfied. Embrace that comment and consider it. Keep in mind that "we" = the MAJORITY of TIGER fans. It doesn't mean we are turning backflips over beating C-USA opposition. It doesn't mean we are fully content just making the NCAA tournament. But we belive Pastner will do better. As I have said several times, next year will be a very good measuring stick for Pastner's progress. The Big East will only be missing Pitt and Syracuse; all other BB teams will be there. We'll see how things go in a conference that is MUCH more difficult than the current C-USA.

Yes- because CUSA is 11th ranked and not top 5 big win opportunities would be sparing later- adding to the meaning of the earlier games. And our kids and staff came up short.