Criteria for success for KO as a coach longterm at UCONN

[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.

 

[whaler11]

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

Yes schools like Duke, Notre Dame, Northwestern and Stanford don't take academics seriously. Their APR proves it.

Yale, Penn and Brown have high scores because they are athletic factories that look the other way.

 

[willie99]

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 has more to do with kids not transferring than academics

it will also be self-defeating by
1) reducing the likelihood that programs will take chances on inner-city that are not studs
2) encouraging programs to implement majors for athletes only so they're less likely to lose revenues
3) discouraging programs from allowing recruits to take real majors, can't put financial survival in jeopardy

like most bureaucracies, the NCAA gets everything a$$backwards

 

[upstater]

Yes schools like Duke, Notre Dame, Northwestern and Stanford don't take academics seriously. Their APR proves it.

Yale, Penn and Brown have high scores because they are athletic factories that look the other way.

Yale, Brown, Penn? They are our peer institutions? That's what the original post was about.
And you'd be surprised about the first four. Don't kid yourself, you've been bamboozled. Harvard has failing APR. They try to do academics right, and then there's Duke and ND with clustering: http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/101227/

Bilas is always talking about clustering because he experienced it firsthand.

 

[David 76]

There is a breed of UCONN fan that reacts to every shortcoming of the program by attacking the measuring stick and the NCAA. This is exactly the thinking from fans & alum that create the culture and pressure to excuse players and coaches until things get out of hand.
We had a period of 2 or 3 years when, out of all the students admitted, only 1 graduated. Obviously there was nothing for us to learn. Our APR was among the very lowest in the whole country. Not enough "gut" courses at UCONN. Too many poor kids leave college without a degree and not enough basketball skills to make it as a pro. The problem is we make the players focus too much on academics? Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

 

[whaler11]

Yale, Brown, Penn? They are our peer institutions? That's what the original post was about.
And you'd be surprised about the first four. Don't kid yourself, you've been bamboozled. Harvard has failing APR. They try to do academics right, and then there's Duke and ND with clustering: http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/101227/

Bilas is always talking about clustering because he experienced it firsthand.

Your quote is that schools with high APR don't take academics seriously.

No matter what the ranking, in any discipline you're there to tell us it's wrong. It's amazing how you can track everything from Creighton basketball to the CFB computer rankings to APR to true academics at every university .,. and yet at the same time have never heard of Jameis Winston.