Criteria for success for KO as a coach longterm at UCONN

[Husky25]

Championships are more than coaching (save for the final minute or two). We had some good fortune in our runs (Rips shot against Washington, that AZ player missing that spot on 3, E. Brand early fouls, etc...).

Rip's shot vs. Washington happened in 1998, not 99. It was during my Internship. My Internship class and Tax advisor watched it at Arch Street Tavern.

 

[tzznandrew]

20+ wins yearly
NCAA tounament 17/20 years
10 sweet 16's
7 elite 8's
4 final 4's
2 championships

**edited for what I think you meant**

For Context: The best teams (historically) over the last 20 years (1994-2013) no particular order:

Kansas

20+ wins every yearly
NCAA tournament 20/20 years
14 sweet 16's (1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013)
8 elite 8's (1996, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2011, 2012)
4 final 4's (2002, 2003, 2008, 2012)
1 championship (2008)

UNC

20+ wins most years
NCAA tournament 17/20 years
10 sweet 16's (1995, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012)
10 elite 8's (1995, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012)
7 final 4's (1995, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2005, 2008, 2009)
2 championships (2005, 2009)

Duke

20+ wins almost every years
NCAA tournament 19/20 years
14 sweet 16's (1994, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2011 2013)
7 elite 8's (1994, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2004, 2010, 2013)
5 final 4's (1994, 1999, 2001, 2004, 2010)
2 championships (2001, 2010)

Kentucky

20+ wins almost every years
NCAA tournament 18/20 years
12 sweet 16's (1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2010, 2011, 2012)
9 elite 8's (1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2003, 2005, 2010, 2011, 2012)
5 final 4's (1996, 1997, 1998, 2011, 2012)
3 championships (1996, 1998, 2012)

Syracuse

20+ wins most years
NCAA tournament 16/20 years
10 sweet 16's (1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2004, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013)
4 elite 8's (1996, 2003, 2012, 2013)
3 final 4's (1996, 2003, 2013)
1 championship (2003)

Michigan State

20+ wins most years
NCAA tournament 18/20 years
11 sweet 16's (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013)
7 elite 8's (1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010)
6 final 4's (1999, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2009, 2010)
1 championship (2000)

Louisville

20+ wins most years
NCAA tournament 16/20 years
8 sweet 16's (1994, 1995, 1997, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013)
6 elite 8's (1997, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013)
3 final 4's (2005, 2012, 2013)
1 championship (2013)

Indiana

20+ wins many years
NCAA tournament 15/20 years
4 sweet 16's (1994, 2002, 2012, 2013)
1 elite 8 (2002)
1 final 4 (2002)
0 championships

UCLA

20+ wins many years
NCAA tournament 16/20 years
9 sweet 16's (1995, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2006, 2007, 2008)
5 elite 8 (1995, 1997, 2006, 2007, 2008)
4 final 4s (1995, 2006, 2007, 2008)
1 championships (1995)

Arizona

20+ wins most years
NCAA tournament 18/20 years
11 sweet 16's (1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2011, 2013)
7 elite 8 (1994, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2011)
3 final 4s (1994, 1997, 2001)
1 championships (1997)

Florida

20+ wins many years
NCAA tournament 15/20 years
8 sweet 16's (1994, 1999, 2000, 2006, 2007, 2011, 2012, 2013)
7 elite 8 (1994, 2000, 2006, 2007, 2011, 2012, 2013)
4 final 4s (1994, 2000, 2006, 2007)
2 championships (2006, 2007)


Jim Calhoun’s Last 20 Years at UConn (1993-2012)

20+ wins most years
NCAA tournament 15/20 years
11 sweet 16's (1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2009, 2011)
8 elite 8 (1995, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2009, 2011)
4 final 4s (1999, 2004, 2009, 2011)
3 championships (1999, 2004, 2011)

 

[tzznandrew]

I'm curious as to what fellow yarders feel would be milestones KO would need to reach to be considered a successful coach here at UCONN over the next 20 years?

So, to follow up on that point...you're looking for us to be, essentially, Kansas, with fewer shallow runs, and one deeper run, in the tournament. That's a tall order.

I think we want to avoid being Indiana, and try to stay north of the downs that UCLA has had. I think a title or two is a must for his tenure to be a success, with some Final Fours mixed in, and regular (considering our conference) NCAA appearances.

 

[Kitaman]

Rip's shot vs. Washington happened in 1998, not 99.

This is why I love this board. You guys are so smart matched with elephant type memories.

 

[Leebo]

Comparing nearly anyone to Calhoun is going to be unfavorable to them, so I'm not going to measure KO against him.

Right now, I want to enjoy watching tonight's game. That's all I'm concerned about.

 

[Husky25]

So, to follow up on that point...you're looking for us to be, essentially, Kansas, with fewer shallow runs, and one deeper run, in the tournament. That's a tall order.

I think we want to avoid being Indiana, and try to stay north of the downs that UCLA has had. I think a title or two is a must for his tenure to be a success, with some Final Fours mixed in, and regular (considering our conference) NCAA appearances.

Until UConn is invited elsewhere, the AAC is going to send 3-4+ teams to the tournament yearly. I think the conference is better than most are giving it credit for.

 

[Husky25]

This is why I love this board. You guys are so smart matched with elephant type memories.

It's a burden...

Remember UConn has had some bad luck too (UNC in Greensboro in the 98 Tourney, Laettner's last second shot in 90 [IIRC], Upset by Miss St in '96, GMU in 2006...)

 

[freescooter]

I'd say the minimum standard would have to be 20 wins each year. Top 4 in the AAC during the regular season every year. AAC title 8/20 years. AAC finals 4 more times. NCAA Tourney 15 times. I think coming out of the AAC it will be tougher to make deep runs because seeding will work against UConn due to a chronically weak RPI, so Sweet 16 7 times. 2 Elite 8s and a Final Four would be nice. For the most part great coaches win national championships. If he wins one and does the rest, Ollie will be a great coach. Pretty good coaches seldom do, though there are exceptions like Tubby Smith. If he doesn't he won't. Pretty simple really.

 

[Husky25]

I'd say the minimum standard would have to be 20 wins each year. Top 4 in the AAC during the regular season every year. AAC title 8/20 years. AAC finals 4 more times. NCAA Tourney 15 times. I think coming out of the AAC it will be tougher to make deep runs because seeding will work against UConn due to a chronically weak RPI, so Sweet 16 7 times. 2 Elite 8s and a Final Four would be nice. For the most part great coaches win national championships. If he wins one and does the rest, Ollie will be a great coach. Pretty good coaches seldom do, though there are exceptions like Tubby Smith. If he doesn't he won't. Pretty simple really.

If UConn stays in the AAC, I see an increase in the level of OOC competition. Gonzaga plays in the chronically weak WCC (1 or 2 Tourney bids), and they were the #1 team in the Country and a 1 seed last year, playing such powerhouses as Lewis and Clark University and University of South Dakota.

 

[tzznandrew]

If UConn stays in the AAC, I see an increase in the level of OOC competition. Gonzaga plays in the chronically weak WCC (1 or 2 Tourney bids), and they were the #1 team in the Country and a 1 seed last year, playing such powerhouses as Lewis and Clark University and University of South Dakota.

You're right. If you schedule well, and win well, you can get a solid seed. And the American is better than the WCC by a lot.

Don't forget Memphis has gotten 1, 2, and 3 seeds, and St. Joe's got themselves a 1 seed out of the A-10 in the last 10 years.

My concern is less the seeding (although that is important), but trying to play enough good teams so that what often happens to Gonzaga and what happened to Memphis (often) doesn't happen to us--namely, being out of whack once you start playing good teams again.

 

[Husky25]

You're right. If you schedule well, and win well, you can get a solid seed. And the American is better than the WCC by a lot.

Don't forget Memphis has gotten 1, 2, and 3 seeds, and St. Joe's got themselves a 1 seed out of the A-10 in the last 10 years.

My concern is less the seeding (although that is important), but trying to play enough good teams so that what often happens to Gonzaga and what happened to Memphis (often) doesn't happen to us--namely, being out of whack once you start playing good teams again.

UConn had historically played one of their OOC games needs in late Jan/early Feb. time frame when they were in the Big East. Stanford comes to mind in the late 90s, as does UNC in 2004 (Loss).

 

[freescooter]

H25, To be fair though, that seeding was widely panned and they lost in the 2nd round. And their 2 losses came against 2 of the 3 ranked teams they played. Here's an oddity for you. Both losses came to teams that were ranked #13 at the time of the game. When else was Gonzaga given a #1 seed? It is a huge problem and one that playing an upgraded non-conference schedule doesn't completely overcome. It will be a bigger problem 4-5 years from now, too. In part because you're relying on those non-conference teams to be good but if they aren't it can really damage you in seeding. Since the tournament expanded to 64 teams, 70% of the teams in the Elite 8 were seeded 3 or higher. 76 % of final four teams are seeded 3 or better, largely because it is just just a tougher road the worse you are seeded. And with weaker RPI we'll inevitably get worse seeds. And even a slightly worse seed can significantly impact your chances of a deep run. I could't find the study I was looking for but the odds of a 5 getting to the championship game are significanlty lower than a 3 for example.

 

[tzznandrew]

H25, To be fair though, that seeding was widely panned and they lost in the 2nd round. And their 2 losses came against 2 of the 3 ranked teams they played. Here's an oddity for you. Both losses came to teams that were ranked #13 at the time of the game. When else was Gonzaga given a #1 seed? It is a huge problem and one that playing an upgraded non-conference schedule doesn't completely overcome. It will be a bigger problem 4-5 years from now, too. In part because you're relying on those non-conference teams to be good but if they aren't it can really damage you in seeding. Since the tournament expanded to 64 teams, 70% of the teams in the Elite 8 were seeded 3 or higher. 76 % of final four teams are seeded 3 or better, largely because it is just just a tougher road the worse you are seeded. And with weaker RPI we'll inevitably get worse seeds. And even a slightly worse seed can significantly impact your chances of a deep run. I could't find the study I was looking for but the odds of a 5 getting to the championship game are significanlty lower than a 3 for example.

They did lose in the second round (a game I watched and actually thought they were screwed), but I don't think you can always judge a team's season's success on the tournament. 1997 Kansas, 2004 Kentucky, and 2009 (?) Kansas come to mind as really really good teams that lost in the second round as a 1 seed in the relatively recent past.

That said, I do think you are right about the danger--and its one of the reasons I dislike the 18-game league schedule. I get it: UConn/Memphis/Cincy/Temple need to play more of the league to help their RPI, and hopefully bring them up. But in the meanwhile it hurts us, and I want to be out of the league before any one of those teams have gotten the benefits.

 

[aceboon]

H25, To be fair though, that seeding was widely panned and they lost in the 2nd round. And their 2 losses came against 2 of the 3 ranked teams they played. Here's an oddity for you. Both losses came to teams that were ranked #13 at the time of the game. When else was Gonzaga given a #1 seed? It is a huge problem and one that playing an upgraded non-conference schedule doesn't completely overcome. It will be a bigger problem 4-5 years from now, too. In part because you're relying on those non-conference teams to be good but if they aren't it can really damage you in seeding. Since the tournament expanded to 64 teams, 70% of the teams in the Elite 8 were seeded 3 or higher. 76 % of final four teams are seeded 3 or better, largely because it is just just a tougher road the worse you are seeded. And with weaker RPI we'll inevitably get worse seeds. And even a slightly worse seed can significantly impact your chances of a deep run. I could't find the study I was looking for but the odds of a 5 getting to the championship game are significanlty lower than a 3 for example.

In fairness to Gonzaga, Wichita State led pretty much wire to wire against Ohio State in the E8 and then had a 2nd half lead against Louisville in the FF, its not as if it was a Florida Gulf Coast situation where they got washed once they advanced on.

 

[tzznandrew]

In fairness to Gonzaga, Wichita State led pretty much wire to wire against Ohio State in the E8 and then had a 2nd half lead against Louisville in the FF, its not as if it was a Florida Gulf Coast situation where they got washed once they advanced on.

True...Wichita State was underseeded.

 

[Husky25]

H25, To be fair though, that seeding was widely panned and they lost in the 2nd round. And their 2 losses came against 2 of the 3 ranked teams they played. Here's an oddity for you. Both losses came to teams that were ranked #13 at the time of the game. When else was Gonzaga given a #1 seed? It is a huge problem and one that playing an upgraded non-conference schedule doesn't completely overcome. It will be a bigger problem 4-5 years from now, too. In part because you're relying on those non-conference teams to be good but if they aren't it can really damage you in seeding. Since the tournament expanded to 64 teams, 70% of the teams in the Elite 8 were seeded 3 or higher. 76 % of final four teams are seeded 3 or better, largely because it is just just a tougher road the worse you are seeded. And with weaker RPI we'll inevitably get worse seeds. And even a slightly worse seed can significantly impact your chances of a deep run. I could't find the study I was looking for but the odds of a 5 getting to the championship game are significanlty lower than a 3 for example.

The question, "when else was Gonzaga a #1 seed?" is a trick question. No one is a #1 seed until they are. You could have said the same about UConn in 1990. The Zags' seeding may have been panned, but if the seeding numbers were 1-68, Gonzaga was #4. I don't see how the Committee could have seeded them lower. The best #2 seed had 5 losses vs. Gonzaga's 2.

It does not matter much who you play from perceived power conferences, as long as they are in the power conference. Sticking with Gonzaga, I poked fun at them a little by saying they played SDU and L&C Univ., but they also played West Virginia (B12), Clemson (ACC), Oklahoma (B12), Washington St. (PAC), Kansas St (B12), Baylor (B12), Okla. St. (B12), and Butler (Excellent Mid-major). Regardless of where the opponent falls in their own conference, if perceived as a power conference, the opposing Conference RPI helps. UConn should schedule teams from the PAC, B12, B10, and ACC, regardless of team. The SEC is weak, except at the very top (UK and sometimes UF) and limit the teams from the Big East (save for G'Town), A-10, American East, and MAACs of the world.

 

[Palatine]

The only criteria for success or failure of an NCAA coach is success in the NCAA tourney.

If we fail to make the Sweet 16 this year, it's a failure. If we make the final four it's a smashing success.

 

[Kitaman]

If we fail to make the Sweet 16 this year, it's a failure. If we make the final four it's a smashing success.

You have to give him two more years when its fully his team to call it a failure. He still has some of JC's players on the team this year and next. Not to say he can't or shouldn't with this group, its just that technically its not his team.

 

[upstater]

The only criteria for success or failure of an NCAA coach is success in the NCAA tourney.

If we fail to make the Sweet 16 this year, it's a failure. If we make the final four it's a smashing success.

A lot will depend on that seed. A #4 seed means you play the #5 in game 2. That could mean a team like North Carolina. You never know.

But I agree that we're expecting at least a S16.

It's funny that Ollie has this pressure since he's so new and Jamie Dixon at Pitt would be doing backflips for achieving the minimum of what we're expecting for Ollie.

 

[Husky25]

A lot will depend on that seed. A #4 seed means you play the #5 in game 2. That could mean a team like North Carolina. You never know.

But I agree that we're expecting at least a S16.

It's funny that Ollie has this pressure since he's so new and Jamie Dixon at Pitt would be doing backflips for achieving the minimum of what we're expecting for Ollie.

Unless Pitt Changes their style of play, they are going to get killed in the ACC. If they don't adjust to the new hand check rules, it will be even worse. Pitt basketball was made for the Big East, but no one else in the country plays Big East Basketball. Ever wonder why Pitt never made it into the second weekend, even though they could beat the 'Cuses, UConns, and G-towns of the Big East? That is what made Calhoun's teams so special. They could play in the physical Big East and when the time came, adjust their play against the more Finesse, run and gun PAC, ACC, or SEC style teams.

 

[freescooter]

The only criteria for success or failure of an NCAA coach is success in the NCAA tourney.

If we fail to make the Sweet 16 this year, it's a failure. If we make the final four it's a smashing success.

I actually agree with this mostly. If Ollie consistently makes the tourney, consistently makes Sweet 16s with the occasional Elite 8 beyond that he'll be a success. If he gets to Final Fours that's more or less gravy. If he gets a championship, he'll probably be considered a great coach. (though he'll have to produce after that, too).

 

[David 76]

Glad to see lots of fellow fans want to normalize expectations and include APR and graduation rates in their criteria for success. I'm with you. Let's win with pride!

 

[upstater]

Glad to see lots of fellow fans want to normalize expectations and include APR and graduation rates in their criteria for success. I'm with you. Let's win with pride!

APR is a joke, absolute joke. High APR means schools are not taking academics seriously.

 

[David 76]

APR is a joke, absolute joke. High APR means schools are not taking academics seriously.

So, we actually had a superior program. Who knew?!

 

[upstater]

So, we actually had a superior program. Who knew?!

The converse is not true. Low APR does not mean the school takes academics seriously.