(08-19-2018 05:06 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 11:11 AM)ShockerFever Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 05:50 AM)SouthernBlue Wrote:  Memphis is going to be much better than 8th this year. The writers are ignorant of the talent and makeup of the team that Penny has assembled. The team finished last year strong, advancing to the semifinals of the conference tournament. All of the key pieces return. In addition he added shooters, defenders and shored up the inside presence. The current team is very well put together.

Irrespective of whether Penny can coach, talent and confirmation of the team will mean a top 4 finish, and perhaps much, much better.

Actually coaching is a huge part of the equation, and one Memphis fans just can't seem to get a handle on.

Think of all the great teams out there and name one with a bad coach. You can't. Because coaching IS the most important element out there. Period. A bunch of talent assembled means nothing if they don't know what they're doing. I thought that was pretty obvious. Especially when that talent is comprised of a lot of 18 and 19 year olds.

So yes, coaching DOES matter. Penny may miraculously be a top tier Division I coach. But nobody knows that. And that's why the assumption is being made that Memphis doesn't have a proven coach and are picked accordingly.

Top 4 finish and potentially MUCH MUCH MUCH better? I think that's some decent koolaid in your cup but probably one shared by most of the Memphis fanbase.

Talent level is the most important single factor in winning games.

Marshall only won one NCAA Tourney game in nine years at Winthrop. Pastner won two NCAA Tourney games in seven years at Memphis

Why? Option one: because talent level matters more than any other single factor. Option two: Pastner is a better coach than Marshall. I choose option one.

Option three: 14-16 seed autobids almost never win.

Winthrop’s seed during the Marshall tenure (7 NCAA’s BTW) went 16, 14, 16, 16, 14, 15, 11. When an 11 seed wins it is a notable upset of the first weekend; when a 14-16 seed wins it makes national headlines and one shining moment status. The one win he had was - drumroll please - as an 11 seed.

(08-19-2018 05:24 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 05:06 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 11:11 AM)ShockerFever Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 05:50 AM)SouthernBlue Wrote:  Memphis is going to be much better than 8th this year. The writers are ignorant of the talent and makeup of the team that Penny has assembled. The team finished last year strong, advancing to the semifinals of the conference tournament. All of the key pieces return. In addition he added shooters, defenders and shored up the inside presence. The current team is very well put together.

Irrespective of whether Penny can coach, talent and confirmation of the team will mean a top 4 finish, and perhaps much, much better.

Actually coaching is a huge part of the equation, and one Memphis fans just can't seem to get a handle on.

Think of all the great teams out there and name one with a bad coach. You can't. Because coaching IS the most important element out there. Period. A bunch of talent assembled means nothing if they don't know what they're doing. I thought that was pretty obvious. Especially when that talent is comprised of a lot of 18 and 19 year olds.

So yes, coaching DOES matter. Penny may miraculously be a top tier Division I coach. But nobody knows that. And that's why the assumption is being made that Memphis doesn't have a proven coach and are picked accordingly.

Top 4 finish and potentially MUCH MUCH MUCH better? I think that's some decent koolaid in your cup but probably one shared by most of the Memphis fanbase.

Talent level is the most important single factor in winning games.

Marshall only won one NCAA Tourney game in nine years at Winthrop. Pastner won two NCAA Tourney games in seven years at Memphis

Why? Option one: because talent level matters more than any other single factor. Option two: Pastner is a better coach than Marshall. I choose option one.

I don't want to hop into a Penny debate, but I disagree as to which is more important. The way I see it, if talent were the most important factor in determining a teams success, then UT basketball wouldn't be getting outworked by a school like SFA. We all know you need both for a program to really be successful but if I had to choose between one or the other, I'm taking the great coach. At least in college. You could even look at UH's recent history to see why. James Dickey was a solid recruiter at UH. Landed several 4 stars and even a 5 star in Danuel House, but we only made the CBI during his four year stay. Sampson on the other hand, has been able to make 2 NIT's and the NCAAT once in the same amount of years, mostly through juco players. Now obviously there have been some diamonds in the rough in his recruiting classes but even still, its pretty obvious that he's getting a lot more out of his players than Dickey ever did.

Of course the other part to why you want a great coach is because great coaches often attract talented players.

Ok, lets use an extreme situation to prove a point. Golden St is coached by Pastner and Lipscomb is coached by Marshall.

1. Which team is more talented?
2. Which team has the better coach?
3. Which team would win a game between the two?

(08-19-2018 06:15 PM)SHOCK_value Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 05:06 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 11:11 AM)ShockerFever Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 05:50 AM)SouthernBlue Wrote:  Memphis is going to be much better than 8th this year. The writers are ignorant of the talent and makeup of the team that Penny has assembled. The team finished last year strong, advancing to the semifinals of the conference tournament. All of the key pieces return. In addition he added shooters, defenders and shored up the inside presence. The current team is very well put together.

Irrespective of whether Penny can coach, talent and confirmation of the team will mean a top 4 finish, and perhaps much, much better.

Actually coaching is a huge part of the equation, and one Memphis fans just can't seem to get a handle on.

Think of all the great teams out there and name one with a bad coach. You can't. Because coaching IS the most important element out there. Period. A bunch of talent assembled means nothing if they don't know what they're doing. I thought that was pretty obvious. Especially when that talent is comprised of a lot of 18 and 19 year olds.

So yes, coaching DOES matter. Penny may miraculously be a top tier Division I coach. But nobody knows that. And that's why the assumption is being made that Memphis doesn't have a proven coach and are picked accordingly.

Top 4 finish and potentially MUCH MUCH MUCH better? I think that's some decent koolaid in your cup but probably one shared by most of the Memphis fanbase.

Talent level is the most important single factor in winning games.

Marshall only won one NCAA Tourney game in nine years at Winthrop. Pastner won two NCAA Tourney games in seven years at Memphis

Why? Option one: because talent level matters more than any other single factor. Option two: Pastner is a better coach than Marshall. I choose option one.

Option three: 14-16 seed autobids almost never win.

Winthrop’s seed during the Marshall tenure (7 NCAA’s BTW) went 16, 14, 16, 16, 14, 15, 11. When an 11 seed wins it is a notable upset of the first weekend; when a 14-16 seed wins it makes national headlines and one shining moment status. The one win he had was - drumroll please - as an 11 seed.

Winthrop had their chances to improve their seeds but blew it. For example, in 2005-2006 Winthrop lost to Alabama, SC, Auburn, Memphis (by double digits), Costal Carolina (twice), and Liberty before losing again in the NCAA Tourney. I think Marshall is a terrific coach (among the best), but he could not win more than the occasional upset and lost games to bad teams because he did not have sufficient talent and talent level is the single most important factor for winning games. Do you really think Calipari could beat a Marshall lead team unless Calipari had an overwhelming talent advantage? I don't.

Furthermore, Marshall went 11-17 and 17-17 his first two years at WSU. Pastner went to the NIT and the NCAA his first two years at Memphis and never had as bad a first two seasons as Marshall while at Memphis. Did Marshall suddenly become a terrible coach or was talent level the most important single factor for Tiger success and for WSU's ineptness?

Honestly, I think you are not giving Marshall enough credit.

Calipari is an okay coach who gets great talent. Marshall is a great coach who gets average talent. Which team has had more success in the last 10 years?

(08-19-2018 09:15 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Ok, lets use an extreme situation to prove a point. Golden St is coached by Pastner and Lipscomb is coached by Marshall.

1. Which team is more talented?
2. Which team has the better coach?
3. Which team would win a game between the two?

nba to college is bad example .....make this comparison with college teams and this argument wont go in the favor you think it will

no one in college has nba developed rosters.....the talent gap isnt that big

(08-19-2018 09:38 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 06:15 PM)SHOCK_value Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 05:06 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 11:11 AM)ShockerFever Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 05:50 AM)SouthernBlue Wrote:  Memphis is going to be much better than 8th this year. The writers are ignorant of the talent and makeup of the team that Penny has assembled. The team finished last year strong, advancing to the semifinals of the conference tournament. All of the key pieces return. In addition he added shooters, defenders and shored up the inside presence. The current team is very well put together.

Irrespective of whether Penny can coach, talent and confirmation of the team will mean a top 4 finish, and perhaps much, much better.

Actually coaching is a huge part of the equation, and one Memphis fans just can't seem to get a handle on.

Think of all the great teams out there and name one with a bad coach. You can't. Because coaching IS the most important element out there. Period. A bunch of talent assembled means nothing if they don't know what they're doing. I thought that was pretty obvious. Especially when that talent is comprised of a lot of 18 and 19 year olds.

So yes, coaching DOES matter. Penny may miraculously be a top tier Division I coach. But nobody knows that. And that's why the assumption is being made that Memphis doesn't have a proven coach and are picked accordingly.

Top 4 finish and potentially MUCH MUCH MUCH better? I think that's some decent koolaid in your cup but probably one shared by most of the Memphis fanbase.

Talent level is the most important single factor in winning games.

Marshall only won one NCAA Tourney game in nine years at Winthrop. Pastner won two NCAA Tourney games in seven years at Memphis

Why? Option one: because talent level matters more than any other single factor. Option two: Pastner is a better coach than Marshall. I choose option one.

Option three: 14-16 seed autobids almost never win.

Winthrop’s seed during the Marshall tenure (7 NCAA’s BTW) went 16, 14, 16, 16, 14, 15, 11. When an 11 seed wins it is a notable upset of the first weekend; when a 14-16 seed wins it makes national headlines and one shining moment status. The one win he had was - drumroll please - as an 11 seed.

Winthrop had their chances to improve their seeds but blew it. For example, in 2005-2006 Winthrop lost to Alabama, SC, Auburn, Memphis (by double digits), Costal Carolina (twice), and Liberty before losing again in the NCAA Tourney. I think Marshall is a terrific coach (among the best), but he could not win more than the occasional upset and lost games to bad teams because he did not have sufficient talent and talent level is the single most important factor for winning games. Do you really think Calipari could beat a Marshall lead team unless Calipari had an overwhelming talent advantage? I don't.

Furthermore, Marshall went 11-17 and 17-17 his first two years at WSU. Pastner went to the NIT and the NCAA his first two years at Memphis and never had as bad a first two seasons as Marshall while at Memphis. Did Marshall suddenly become a terrible coach or was talent level the most important single factor for Tiger success and for WSU's ineptness?

Honestly, I think you are not giving Marshall enough credit.

H

Good Lord, are all memphus fans this out of touch with reality?

Memphis record:
33-4
33-4
38-2
33-4
24-10
25-10
26-9
30-4
24-10
18-14
19-10

Guess where pastner took over? Your recruiting didn't go down but your wins did. After the last of Calipari's influence was gone your win total fell quickly. Your talent didn't though.

Contrast with WSU, 4 years before Marshall, and then his run of seven years.
21-11
22-10
26-9
17-14
11-20
17-17
25-10
29-8
27-6
30-9
35-1

(08-19-2018 09:59 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 09:15 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Ok, lets use an extreme situation to prove a point. Golden St is coached by Pastner and Lipscomb is coached by Marshall.

1. Which team is more talented?
2. Which team has the better coach?
3. Which team would win a game between the two?

nba to college is bad example .....make this comparison with college teams and this argument wont go in the favor you think it will

no one in college has nba developed rosters.....the talent gap isnt that big

No, it is an appropriate example because it starkly reveals the relative importance of a great coach vs great talent. Coaching, as indicated by "x's and o's" and player development, matters but talent level matters more . Do you think Calipari often makes the Elite 8 and better based on his coaching ability?

(08-19-2018 09:15 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 05:24 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 05:06 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 11:11 AM)ShockerFever Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 05:50 AM)SouthernBlue Wrote:  Memphis is going to be much better than 8th this year. The writers are ignorant of the talent and makeup of the team that Penny has assembled. The team finished last year strong, advancing to the semifinals of the conference tournament. All of the key pieces return. In addition he added shooters, defenders and shored up the inside presence. The current team is very well put together.

Irrespective of whether Penny can coach, talent and confirmation of the team will mean a top 4 finish, and perhaps much, much better.

Actually coaching is a huge part of the equation, and one Memphis fans just can't seem to get a handle on.

Think of all the great teams out there and name one with a bad coach. You can't. Because coaching IS the most important element out there. Period. A bunch of talent assembled means nothing if they don't know what they're doing. I thought that was pretty obvious. Especially when that talent is comprised of a lot of 18 and 19 year olds.

So yes, coaching DOES matter. Penny may miraculously be a top tier Division I coach. But nobody knows that. And that's why the assumption is being made that Memphis doesn't have a proven coach and are picked accordingly.

Top 4 finish and potentially MUCH MUCH MUCH better? I think that's some decent koolaid in your cup but probably one shared by most of the Memphis fanbase.

Talent level is the most important single factor in winning games.

Marshall only won one NCAA Tourney game in nine years at Winthrop. Pastner won two NCAA Tourney games in seven years at Memphis

Why? Option one: because talent level matters more than any other single factor. Option two: Pastner is a better coach than Marshall. I choose option one.

I don't want to hop into a Penny debate, but I disagree as to which is more important. The way I see it, if talent were the most important factor in determining a teams success, then UT basketball wouldn't be getting outworked by a school like SFA. We all know you need both for a program to really be successful but if I had to choose between one or the other, I'm taking the great coach. At least in college. You could even look at UH's recent history to see why. James Dickey was a solid recruiter at UH. Landed several 4 stars and even a 5 star in Danuel House, but we only made the CBI during his four year stay. Sampson on the other hand, has been able to make 2 NIT's and the NCAAT once in the same amount of years, mostly through juco players. Now obviously there have been some diamonds in the rough in his recruiting classes but even still, its pretty obvious that he's getting a lot more out of his players than Dickey ever did.

Of course the other part to why you want a great coach is because great coaches often attract talented players.

Ok, lets use an extreme situation to prove a point. Golden St is coached by Pastner and Lipscomb is coached by Marshall.

1. Which team is more talented?
2. Which team has the better coach?
3. Which team would win a game between the two?

There is no one factor that equals success.
It's a mix of so many things: talent, coaching, chemistry, player development among many others.

The players will play hard and have tremendous respect for Penny,something Pastner never had. There will be growing pains, but I think Penny 's the type that will learn from his mistakes and not let his ego get in the way of winning.

Predictions: hou, cin, ucf, mem, wsu, uconn, tulsa, smu, tem, ecu, tulane, usf.

Mem beats hou in tournament finals@mem
AAC sends 4 dancing. Uconn wins the NIT

(08-19-2018 10:10 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 09:38 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 06:15 PM)SHOCK_value Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 05:06 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 11:11 AM)ShockerFever Wrote:  Actually coaching is a huge part of the equation, and one Memphis fans just can't seem to get a handle on.

Think of all the great teams out there and name one with a bad coach. You can't. Because coaching IS the most important element out there. Period. A bunch of talent assembled means nothing if they don't know what they're doing. I thought that was pretty obvious. Especially when that talent is comprised of a lot of 18 and 19 year olds.

So yes, coaching DOES matter. Penny may miraculously be a top tier Division I coach. But nobody knows that. And that's why the assumption is being made that Memphis doesn't have a proven coach and are picked accordingly.

Top 4 finish and potentially MUCH MUCH MUCH better? I think that's some decent koolaid in your cup but probably one shared by most of the Memphis fanbase.

Talent level is the most important single factor in winning games.

Marshall only won one NCAA Tourney game in nine years at Winthrop. Pastner won two NCAA Tourney games in seven years at Memphis

Why? Option one: because talent level matters more than any other single factor. Option two: Pastner is a better coach than Marshall. I choose option one.

Option three: 14-16 seed autobids almost never win.

Winthrop’s seed during the Marshall tenure (7 NCAA’s BTW) went 16, 14, 16, 16, 14, 15, 11. When an 11 seed wins it is a notable upset of the first weekend; when a 14-16 seed wins it makes national headlines and one shining moment status. The one win he had was - drumroll please - as an 11 seed.

Winthrop had their chances to improve their seeds but blew it. For example, in 2005-2006 Winthrop lost to Alabama, SC, Auburn, Memphis (by double digits), Costal Carolina (twice), and Liberty before losing again in the NCAA Tourney. I think Marshall is a terrific coach (among the best), but he could not win more than the occasional upset and lost games to bad teams because he did not have sufficient talent and talent level is the single most important factor for winning games. Do you really think Calipari could beat a Marshall lead team unless Calipari had an overwhelming talent advantage? I don't.

Furthermore, Marshall went 11-17 and 17-17 his first two years at WSU. Pastner went to the NIT and the NCAA his first two years at Memphis and never had as bad a first two seasons as Marshall while at Memphis. Did Marshall suddenly become a terrible coach or was talent level the most important single factor for Tiger success and for WSU's ineptness?

Honestly, I think you are not giving Marshall enough credit.

H

Good Lord, are all memphus fans this out of touch with reality?

Memphis record:
33-4
33-4
38-2
33-4
24-10
25-10
26-9
30-4
24-10
18-14
19-10

Guess where pastner took over? Your recruiting didn't go down but your wins did. After the last of Calipari's influence was gone your win total fell quickly. Your talent didn't though.

No. Our talent level went down significantly the last two years of Pastner's tenure. Tubby (a reputed great coach) performed even worse than Pastner because he did not recruit sufficient talent.

You apparently believe Calipari is a superior coach to Marshall because you ignored my question. I disagree, but you are welcome to your opinion.

1) stop only looking at the good examples as justification...if 10 people try something and only 2 succeed....constantly referencing the only 2 success stories, pretending there were only 2 attempts ignores that there is only a 20% chance of success..

my point: kentucky isnt the only team recruiting elite players..texas, lsu, texas a&m, mizzou, usc, ohio state, miami.....these are teams with MONSTER recruiting classes yearly..who are have subpar success

remember that time memphis got the #3 recruiting class (something many memphis fans debated as the best in the nation)...and remember those results...obviously memphis fans dont

remember that time Markelle fultz, Ben Simmons, Michael porter just owned college basketball and the made tournament by their talent.. i dont

2) talent is a Major factor to winning....the key word is "factor"... small part of a whole.... coaching (x and o's), player development, culture, and fit..each play equally major roles ..you can lack with 1 but make up for it in another

3) Houston major players last season that finished top 25, tied for 2nd in the AAC, 1 hail mary from beating the ncaa runner up

rob gray: juco
devin davis: juco
corey davis: juco
breaon brady: juco
galen robinson: 3star
wes vanbeck: walk-on
nura zanna: 2 star
armoni brooks 3 star

(08-19-2018 10:13 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 09:59 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 09:15 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Ok, lets use an extreme situation to prove a point. Golden St is coached by Pastner and Lipscomb is coached by Marshall.

1. Which team is more talented?
2. Which team has the better coach?
3. Which team would win a game between the two?

nba to college is bad example .....make this comparison with college teams and this argument wont go in the favor you think it will

no one in college has nba developed rosters.....the talent gap isnt that big

No, it is an appropriate example because it starkly reveals the relative importance of a great coach vs great talent. Coaching, as indicated by "x's and o's" and player development, matters but talent level matters more . Do you think Calipari often makes the Elite 8 and better based on his coaching ability?

cal dominated at umass without elite classes....lets not act like cal is a pure dunce

and its not perfect example ... nba players are 26-34yrs ol,d who could coach themselves and know x and o (from years of being taught by elite coaches)...nba players have a decade of player development by top coaches

the difference between nba and Lipscomb is the Atlantic ocean....im not praising pastner but its not the same divide when comparing Marshall

to stick with your comparison (but a fair one): everyone on the golden state warriors roster when they were recruits, coached by a local high school coach.....vs Marshall and a team at Lipscomb that he has developed (coached for atleast 3 years)... im taking marshall and lipscomb ..i think it will be a blowout

(08-19-2018 10:10 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 09:38 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 06:15 PM)SHOCK_value Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 05:06 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 11:11 AM)ShockerFever Wrote:  Actually coaching is a huge part of the equation, and one Memphis fans just can't seem to get a handle on.

Think of all the great teams out there and name one with a bad coach. You can't. Because coaching IS the most important element out there. Period. A bunch of talent assembled means nothing if they don't know what they're doing. I thought that was pretty obvious. Especially when that talent is comprised of a lot of 18 and 19 year olds.

So yes, coaching DOES matter. Penny may miraculously be a top tier Division I coach. But nobody knows that. And that's why the assumption is being made that Memphis doesn't have a proven coach and are picked accordingly.

Top 4 finish and potentially MUCH MUCH MUCH better? I think that's some decent koolaid in your cup but probably one shared by most of the Memphis fanbase.

Talent level is the most important single factor in winning games.

Marshall only won one NCAA Tourney game in nine years at Winthrop. Pastner won two NCAA Tourney games in seven years at Memphis

Why? Option one: because talent level matters more than any other single factor. Option two: Pastner is a better coach than Marshall. I choose option one.

Option three: 14-16 seed autobids almost never win.

Winthrop’s seed during the Marshall tenure (7 NCAA’s BTW) went 16, 14, 16, 16, 14, 15, 11. When an 11 seed wins it is a notable upset of the first weekend; when a 14-16 seed wins it makes national headlines and one shining moment status. The one win he had was - drumroll please - as an 11 seed.

Winthrop had their chances to improve their seeds but blew it. For example, in 2005-2006 Winthrop lost to Alabama, SC, Auburn, Memphis (by double digits), Costal Carolina (twice), and Liberty before losing again in the NCAA Tourney. I think Marshall is a terrific coach (among the best), but he could not win more than the occasional upset and lost games to bad teams because he did not have sufficient talent and talent level is the single most important factor for winning games. Do you really think Calipari could beat a Marshall lead team unless Calipari had an overwhelming talent advantage? I don't.

Furthermore, Marshall went 11-17 and 17-17 his first two years at WSU. Pastner went to the NIT and the NCAA his first two years at Memphis and never had as bad a first two seasons as Marshall while at Memphis. Did Marshall suddenly become a terrible coach or was talent level the most important single factor for Tiger success and for WSU's ineptness?

Honestly, I think you are not giving Marshall enough credit.

H

Good Lord, are all memphus fans this out of touch with reality?

Memphis record:
33-4
33-4
38-2
33-4
24-10
25-10
26-9
30-4
24-10
18-14
19-10

Guess where pastner took over? Your recruiting didn't go down but your wins did. After the last of Calipari's influence was gone your win total fell quickly. Your talent didn't though.

Contrast with WSU, 4 years before Marshall, and then his run of seven years.
21-11
22-10
26-9
17-14
11-20
17-17
25-10
29-8
27-6
30-9
35-1

The Tigers lost John Wall , Boogie Cousins , and Eric Bledsoe.

Lil bit of a talent drop.

(08-19-2018 10:26 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 10:10 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 09:38 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 06:15 PM)SHOCK_value Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 05:06 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Talent level is the most important single factor in winning games.

Marshall only won one NCAA Tourney game in nine years at Winthrop. Pastner won two NCAA Tourney games in seven years at Memphis

Why? Option one: because talent level matters more than any other single factor. Option two: Pastner is a better coach than Marshall. I choose option one.

Option three: 14-16 seed autobids almost never win.

Winthrop’s seed during the Marshall tenure (7 NCAA’s BTW) went 16, 14, 16, 16, 14, 15, 11. When an 11 seed wins it is a notable upset of the first weekend; when a 14-16 seed wins it makes national headlines and one shining moment status. The one win he had was - drumroll please - as an 11 seed.

Winthrop had their chances to improve their seeds but blew it. For example, in 2005-2006 Winthrop lost to Alabama, SC, Auburn, Memphis (by double digits), Costal Carolina (twice), and Liberty before losing again in the NCAA Tourney. I think Marshall is a terrific coach (among the best), but he could not win more than the occasional upset and lost games to bad teams because he did not have sufficient talent and talent level is the single most important factor for winning games. Do you really think Calipari could beat a Marshall lead team unless Calipari had an overwhelming talent advantage? I don't.

Furthermore, Marshall went 11-17 and 17-17 his first two years at WSU. Pastner went to the NIT and the NCAA his first two years at Memphis and never had as bad a first two seasons as Marshall while at Memphis. Did Marshall suddenly become a terrible coach or was talent level the most important single factor for Tiger success and for WSU's ineptness?

Honestly, I think you are not giving Marshall enough credit.

H

Good Lord, are all memphus fans this out of touch with reality?

Memphis record:
33-4
33-4
38-2
33-4
24-10
25-10
26-9
30-4
24-10
18-14
19-10

Guess where pastner took over? Your recruiting didn't go down but your wins did. After the last of Calipari's influence was gone your win total fell quickly. Your talent didn't though.

No. Our talent level went down significantly the last two years of Pastner's tenure. Tubby (a reputed great coach) performed even worse than Pastner because he did not recruit sufficient talent.

You apparently believe Calipari is a superior coach to Marshall because you ignored my question. I disagree, but you are welcome to your opinion.

No i took an apples to apples look not an oranges to pineapples comparision.

Pastner recruited fine his first four years. But there is still a pretty big drop off from Calipari's last year to Pastner's first. If it was just about the talent the difference wouldn't have been so obvious.

You seem to think Calipari has no coaching ability? Just recruits five players and let's them run? Is that why Anthony Davis couldn't get the ball inside unless it was a lob? Calipari is quite a bit above average in X's and O's.

(08-19-2018 10:46 PM)Crowleys Ridge Tiger Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 10:10 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 09:38 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 06:15 PM)SHOCK_value Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 05:06 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Talent level is the most important single factor in winning games.

Marshall only won one NCAA Tourney game in nine years at Winthrop. Pastner won two NCAA Tourney games in seven years at Memphis

Why? Option one: because talent level matters more than any other single factor. Option two: Pastner is a better coach than Marshall. I choose option one.

Option three: 14-16 seed autobids almost never win.

Winthrop’s seed during the Marshall tenure (7 NCAA’s BTW) went 16, 14, 16, 16, 14, 15, 11. When an 11 seed wins it is a notable upset of the first weekend; when a 14-16 seed wins it makes national headlines and one shining moment status. The one win he had was - drumroll please - as an 11 seed.

Winthrop had their chances to improve their seeds but blew it. For example, in 2005-2006 Winthrop lost to Alabama, SC, Auburn, Memphis (by double digits), Costal Carolina (twice), and Liberty before losing again in the NCAA Tourney. I think Marshall is a terrific coach (among the best), but he could not win more than the occasional upset and lost games to bad teams because he did not have sufficient talent and talent level is the single most important factor for winning games. Do you really think Calipari could beat a Marshall lead team unless Calipari had an overwhelming talent advantage? I don't.

Furthermore, Marshall went 11-17 and 17-17 his first two years at WSU. Pastner went to the NIT and the NCAA his first two years at Memphis and never had as bad a first two seasons as Marshall while at Memphis. Did Marshall suddenly become a terrible coach or was talent level the most important single factor for Tiger success and for WSU's ineptness?

Honestly, I think you are not giving Marshall enough credit.

H

Good Lord, are all memphus fans this out of touch with reality?

Memphis record:
33-4
33-4
38-2
33-4
24-10
25-10
26-9
30-4
24-10
18-14
19-10

Guess where pastner took over? Your recruiting didn't go down but your wins did. After the last of Calipari's influence was gone your win total fell quickly. Your talent didn't though.

Contrast with WSU, 4 years before Marshall, and then his run of seven years.
21-11
22-10
26-9
17-14
11-20
17-17
25-10
29-8
27-6
30-9
35-1

The Tigers lost John Wall , Boogie Cousins , and Eric Bledsoe.

Lil bit of a talent drop.

Quote:1. Josh Pastner is one of the top recruiters in college basketball.
Without a doubt, the biggest surprise of the early signing period was Memphis' ascension to No. 1 in ESPN.com's recruiting class rankings. The Tigers came into the early signing period with a very good class, ranked third, that was led by ESPNU 100 prospects Will Barton (Baltimore/Brewster Academy) and Joe Jackson (Memphis, Tenn./Whitestation). The late additions of Jelan Kendrick and Tarik Black, both ESPNU 100 prospects, propelled the Tigers to the top spot. Having known Josh Pastner for some time, I am impressed with how quick his recruiting success has come as a head coach. He has been a known commodity on the recruiting trail as an assistant coach at both Arizona and Memphis. Now he's a household name.

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/recru...id=4664716

I'd say Pastner recruited at least to Calipari's previous level at Memphis or did Calipari bring in a class better than #1?

(08-19-2018 10:36 PM)pesik Wrote:  1) stop only looking at the good examples as justification...if 10 people try something and only 2 succeed....constantly referencing the only 2 success pretending there were only 2 attempts..ignores there is only a 205 chance of success..

my point: kentucky isnt the only team recruiting elite players..texas, lsu, texas a&m, mizzou, usc, ohio state, miami.....these are teams with MONSTER recruiting classes yearly..who are have subpar success

remember that time memphis got the #3 recruiting class (something many memphis fans debated as the best in the nation)...and remember those results...obviously memphis fans dont

remember that time Markelle fultz, Ben Simmons, Michael porter just owned college basketball and the made tournament by their talent.. i dont

2) talent is a Major factor to wining....the key word is factor... small part of whole.... coaching (x and o's), player development, culture, and fit..each play equally major roles ..you can lack with 1 but make up for it in another

3) Houston major players last season that finished top 25, tied for 2nd in the AAC, 1 hail mary from beating the ncaa runner up

rob gray: juco
devin davis: juco
corey davis: juco
breaon brady: juco
galen robinson: 3star
wes vanbeck: walk-on
nura zanna: 2 star
armoni brooks 3 star

Focus on the point. If the talent gap between two teams is sufficiently wide, the team with lesser talent will seldom win regardless of the coach. Period. Coaching becomes more important as the gap narrows, but the team with the most talent will always have the upper hand.

Look at the results of the NCAA Tourney between the 1st seed and the 16th seed. Do you think Sampson would rather coach the 16th seed team or the 1st seeded team? Since talent is a “small part of the whole”, he should win as a 16th seed with no problem, right?

Talent level is not tne only factor for success, but it is the single most important factor.

(08-19-2018 10:59 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 10:46 PM)Crowleys Ridge Tiger Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 10:10 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 09:38 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 06:15 PM)SHOCK_value Wrote:  Option three: 14-16 seed autobids almost never win.

Winthrop’s seed during the Marshall tenure (7 NCAA’s BTW) went 16, 14, 16, 16, 14, 15, 11. When an 11 seed wins it is a notable upset of the first weekend; when a 14-16 seed wins it makes national headlines and one shining moment status. The one win he had was - drumroll please - as an 11 seed.

Winthrop had their chances to improve their seeds but blew it. For example, in 2005-2006 Winthrop lost to Alabama, SC, Auburn, Memphis (by double digits), Costal Carolina (twice), and Liberty before losing again in the NCAA Tourney. I think Marshall is a terrific coach (among the best), but he could not win more than the occasional upset and lost games to bad teams because he did not have sufficient talent and talent level is the single most important factor for winning games. Do you really think Calipari could beat a Marshall lead team unless Calipari had an overwhelming talent advantage? I don't.

Furthermore, Marshall went 11-17 and 17-17 his first two years at WSU. Pastner went to the NIT and the NCAA his first two years at Memphis and never had as bad a first two seasons as Marshall while at Memphis. Did Marshall suddenly become a terrible coach or was talent level the most important single factor for Tiger success and for WSU's ineptness?

Honestly, I think you are not giving Marshall enough credit.

H

Good Lord, are all memphus fans this out of touch with reality?

Memphis record:
33-4
33-4
38-2
33-4
24-10
25-10
26-9
30-4
24-10
18-14
19-10

Guess where pastner took over? Your recruiting didn't go down but your wins did. After the last of Calipari's influence was gone your win total fell quickly. Your talent didn't though.

Contrast with WSU, 4 years before Marshall, and then his run of seven years.
21-11
22-10
26-9
17-14
11-20
17-17
25-10
29-8
27-6
30-9
35-1

The Tigers lost John Wall , Boogie Cousins , and Eric Bledsoe.

Lil bit of a talent drop.

Quote:1. Josh Pastner is one of the top recruiters in college basketball.
Without a doubt, the biggest surprise of the early signing period was Memphis' ascension to No. 1 in ESPN.com's recruiting class rankings. The Tigers came into the early signing period with a very good class, ranked third, that was led by ESPNU 100 prospects Will Barton (Baltimore/Brewster Academy) and Joe Jackson (Memphis, Tenn./Whitestation). The late additions of Jelan Kendrick and Tarik Black, both ESPNU 100 prospects, propelled the Tigers to the top spot. Having known Josh Pastner for some time, I am impressed with how quick his recruiting success has come as a head coach. He has been a known commodity on the recruiting trail as an assistant coach at both Arizona and Memphis. Now he's a household name.

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/recru...id=4664716

I'd say Pastner recruited at least to Calipari's previous level at Memphis or did Calipari bring in a class better than #1?

You said when pastner took over there wasn't a drop in talent and the wins went down. WRONG

Calipari's departure resulted in the disintegration of Memphis' recruiting class. Signed recruits DeMarcus Cousins and Darnell Dodson were allowed out of their letters of intent and followed Calipari to Kentucky. Xavier Henry was also allowed to leave, and while briefly considering following Calipari as well, ultimately decided to attend the University of Kansas. Guard Nolan Dennis was also allowed to leave, choosing to attend Baylor University. Of Memphis' original 2009 recruiting class, only JUCO forward Will Coleman decided to honor his commitment to play for the Tigers. Sophomore forward Ángel García lost most of the season with an ACL tear, but made an unexpected debut after only five months of recovery. Despite shooting 52% in 2-point field goals and 41% in 3-point field goals, García saw limited action due to the recovery process.
Memphis' roster was also devastated by other departures not directly related to the coaching change. Redshirt freshman C. J. Henry, brother of Xavier Henry, chose to transfer to Kansas to play with his brother after sitting out the season due to an ankle injury. Memphis recruit Latavious Williams decided not to honor his commitment, instead deciding to play professionally in China; ultimately, Williams was drafted into the NBA Development League. On March 31, 2009, freshman sensation Tyreke Evans declared himself eligible for the 2009 NBA Draft, ultimately being drafted 4th overall by the Sacramento Kings. Senior forward Shawn Taggart declared for the draft on June 6, 2009, despite having one year of eligibility remaining.

(08-19-2018 07:57 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 05:50 AM)SouthernBlue Wrote:  Memphis is going to be much better than 8th this year. The writers are ignorant of the talent and makeup of the team that Penny has assembled. The team finished last year strong, advancing to the semifinals of the conference tournament. All of the key pieces return. In addition he added shooters, defenders and shored up the inside presence. The current team is very well put together.

Irrespective of whether Penny can coach, talent and confirmation of the team will mean a top 4 finish, and perhaps much, much better.

I strive to maintain objectivity, although I am pumped just like any other fervent Tiger fan. When objective pundits consistently place Memphis in the lower rankings, it causes me pause.

It is early, but only two of the seven media members pick Memphis to finish better than last season. What are they seeing? Are the issues legitiment? To date, the concerns appear to revolve around the competency of the Tiger coaching staff. If so, I think the concerns are exaggerated, but we will see.

I think it is the new coach who has never been a head coach thing. You have to prove yourself on the sidelines. Aaron McKie will get the same treatment next year at Temple.

(08-19-2018 11:16 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 10:36 PM)pesik Wrote:  1) stop only looking at the good examples as justification...if 10 people try something and only 2 succeed....constantly referencing the only 2 success pretending there were only 2 attempts..ignores there is only a 205 chance of success..

my point: kentucky isnt the only team recruiting elite players..texas, lsu, texas a&m, mizzou, usc, ohio state, miami.....these are teams with MONSTER recruiting classes yearly..who are have subpar success

remember that time memphis got the #3 recruiting class (something many memphis fans debated as the best in the nation)...and remember those results...obviously memphis fans dont

remember that time Markelle fultz, Ben Simmons, Michael porter just owned college basketball and the made tournament by their talent.. i dont

2) talent is a Major factor to wining....the key word is factor... small part of whole.... coaching (x and o's), player development, culture, and fit..each play equally major roles ..you can lack with 1 but make up for it in another

3) Houston major players last season that finished top 25, tied for 2nd in the AAC, 1 hail mary from beating the ncaa runner up

rob gray: juco
devin davis: juco
corey davis: juco
breaon brady: juco
galen robinson: 3star
wes vanbeck: walk-on
nura zanna: 2 star
armoni brooks 3 star

Focus on the point. If the talent gap between two teams is sufficiently wide, the team with lesser talent will seldom win regardless of the coach. Period. Coaching becomes more important as the gap narrow, but the team with the most talent will always have upper hand.

Look at the results of the NCAA Tourney between the 1st seed and the 16th seed. Do you think Sampson would rather coach the 16th seed team or the 1st seeded team? Since talent is a “small part of the whole”, he should win as a 16th seed with no problem, right?

im sorry, i dont buy that in the college 1 bit...in essence i agree that you can eventually just flat out talent a team if the gap is big enough...but college teams (which is what this conversation is about) will never have that big of a gap, a top 50 recruit/frehsmne isnt vastly different than a 3rd year junior who has developed that was ranked #167...that top 40 wont stay in college but 1 year ....

and your 1 and 16 seed debate doesnt equate either: most 1 seeds are teams who can coach and recruit.....no one is saying recruiting is bad, but we just believe coaching trumps it.. a combination of coaching and talent > just coaching...which is what most 1 vs 16 seed are like

maybe its because im a film junkie or becuase houston had 6 top 100 4star in 2013/14 and didnt even make the NIT, but to win at the top level xs and os like Sampson's is ESSENTIAL

from film (an example):
looking at Wichita state last year, ..i don't think anyone could have stopped them defensively without elite x and os.
quick review of Wichita: they had 3 40% 3pt shooter in backcourt and 2 30% 3pt shooter in the front court, who were also great in the paint....they ran infinite amounts of well designed screens and the second one gets open it was essentially an automatic bucket..

game 1: Wichita ran us off the court the first time we played (up 30/40 at parts in the game), i left that game thinking it might be time to start believing the Wichita hype.. Sampson completely downplayed the win as a schematic thing....his lack of worry bothered me, after such a beat down

game 2: the next time we played wichita, we put out a whole new personal combination we hadnt all season, and some players who regularly got 25mins played 5. we ran counter plays for every play they ran. if players tried to screen, we ran complicated switches to keep defensive integrity ..for the full 40 mins i dont think wichita got a clean shot....that was Wichita worst offensive performance of the season... post game sampson said he made sure Wichita didnt shoot like they did the 1st on us again...

another example i could name was with Michigan and the 4 guard line up vs their 40% 3pt shooting bigs ...

that was a battle of x's and o's...i dont think talent alone wins those type of games (common at the top level), wichita runs well designed complicated plays and had top level movement and screens to get players open...just throwing talent out there wouldn't stop them.. that offense exploited individual players or random players trying to help....your defense (with all 5 players) had to move as a unit and counter their design with yours to have a chance...our 2013/14 teams never ran things that complicated, and that made it clear why they werent that good despite talent ..

Things like that are made me realize how essential xs and o's are to be a top level team..can you beat the low and middling teams with talent?..sure.. but you arent going to beat top teams consistently with talent alone, and those are what is needed to be top seeds in the tournament

Would you rather have the #5 recruiting class in the nation and have Kevin Ollie as a coach or a bunch of juco's and Kelvin Sampson coaching?

Golden State's an interesting team to bring up in the talent versus coaching debate. Go look at their 2013 and 2014 rosters. They went from 51 wins and out in the first round to 67 wins and NBA champions without much personnel change at all. The key difference between the two years however, Steve Kerr.

As for Calipari, he made an Elite Eight and a Final Four in consecutive years at UMass, so don't tell me that guy can't coach because his track record says otherwise.

Ultimately you have to have some combination of both to really succeed at this level, and its often the case that the teams with elite talent also have an elite coach because good players want to play for good coaches. Memphis is in an excellent position going forward because Penny's already landing elite talent in his recruiting. If it turns out he can coach and develop that talent, then you guys are going to take off.