Coaching Carousel

[Peoria Illini]

Tony's a very good coach. That being said, his slower tempo offense, while efficient, won't be as interesting to recruits as Underwood's should be.

I'm glad we got Underwood instead of Bennett.

Of course I'm old, so I'll change my mind if Underwood doesn't turn out well for us...

 

[Foggy Notion]

But you're ignoring context by saying his offense isn't good based on PPG. They have a low PPG due to the playing an extremely slow tempo and strength of schedule. When you control for those things he had the 50th most efficient offense this year and the 8th most efficient last year.

Yeah, I get that, but at the end of the game, the number of points scored is the only thing that matters. Even if you look only at offensive efficiency, Virginia's was 88th this year, 9th in 2016, 50th another, and 25th in 2015 (we must be using different websites). It's not horrible, but not great either.

Still, my larger point is about the future. Playing a slow tempo, ball control offense will only get you so far going forward with the way the game is evolving.

 

[Second and Chalmers]

Still, my larger point is about the future. Playing a slow tempo, ball control offense will only get you so far going forward with the way the game is evolving.

Zigging while everyone else zags often proves to be a brilliant strategy. Especially at a school like Virginia that isn't going to win a fair fight with a lot of their competition.

He's the basketball Paul Johnson, in some ways.

 

[mattcoldagelli]

Playing a slow tempo, ball control offense will only get you so far going forward with the way the game is evolving.

But I'm not sure the way the game is evolving is so much about tempo itself as it is about maximizing good offensive opportunities. Underwood wants to use tempo as a tool to do that - which is great - but that's not necessarily the only way you can go about it. If you slow the game down but still get lots of good looks in the paint and open threes, you'll be more than fine.

If you want to see a retrograde approach to offense, take a look at what we've been doing the last few years.

 

[GBPillini]

Yeah, I get that, but at the end of the game, the number of points scored is the only thing that matters. Even if you look only at offensive efficiency, Virginia's was 88th this year, 9th in 2016, 50th another, and 25th in 2015 (we must be using different websites). It's not horrible, but not great either.

Still, my larger point is about the future. Playing a slow tempo, ball control offense will only get you so far going forward with the way the game is evolving.

I disagree.

People like to talk 'playing fast'..lol. Two NCAA teams are top 40 in pace. 2.

https://twitter.com/Sturdy32/status/842388733072703492

To follow up that last statistic...13 of the 40 'slowest' teams are in the tourney.

https://twitter.com/Sturdy32/status/842400240338649088

 

[Second and Chalmers]

Yeah, I get that, but at the end of the game, the number of points scored is the only thing that matters.

If that's the only thing that matters, the fact that Virginia allows the fewest raw points in the country year after year ought to matter. By that flawed metric they aren't just a great defense, they are the perennial single best, and by a lot.

 

[Ransom Stoddard]

Yeah, I get that, but at the end of the game, the number of points scored is the only thing that matters. Even if you look only at offensive efficiency, Virginia's was 88th this year, 9th in 2016, 50th another, and 25th in 2015 (we must be using different websites). It's not horrible, but not great either.

Still, my larger point is about the future. Playing a slow tempo, ball control offense will only get you so far going forward with the way the game is evolving.

At the end of the game the most important thing that matters is that your team scored more points than the other team. How you got to that state is less important.

 

[Second and Chalmers]

If you want to see a retrograde approach to offense, take a look at what we've been doing the last few years.

Truth.

Also, just as an aside, I wouldn't expect our tempo numbers to suddenly explode.

Underwood likes to attack when the defense is weakest. That's at the beginning of the shot clock when they aren't set yet, but it's also at the end of the shot clock, once you've run some great Underwood offense and stretched them to their breaking point.

 

[WesterveltVictoryCigar]

Truth.

Also, just as an aside, I wouldn't expect our tempo numbers to suddenly explode.

Underwood likes to attack when the defense is weakest. That's at the beginning of the shot clock when they aren't set yet, but it's also at the end of the shot clock, once you've run some great Underwood offense and stretched them to their breaking point.

And the only times you're going to be able to attack in those first 7 seconds is in transition, which means you have to get stops and/or force turnovers. Underwood had to adjust his defense in the B12 because the high pressure tactics weren't working. I imagine he's going to run into the same problems in the B10.

 

[Foggy Notion]

At the end of the game the most important thing that matters is that your team scored more points than the other team. How you got to that state is less important.

I agree, but I also believe that great offense will usually beat great defense.

 

[WesterveltVictoryCigar]

@JonRothstein
BREAKING: Cal will promote assistant Wyking Jones to head coach, per a source. Was on staff with Cuonzo Martin. Also worked for Rick Pitino.

 

[haasi]

Well, looks like Dennis Gates not ending up there. Not surprised that they're going with an assistant who's been a successful recruiter.

 

[Deleted member 10676]

Goodman's tweet on it is interesting.
Jeff Goodman‏Verified account @GoodmanESPN 1m1 minute ago
Cal has agreed to a 5-year deal with assistant Wyking Jones, sources told ESPN. SHOCKING MOVE. Promoted to replace Cuonzo Martin.

 

[mattcoldagelli]

I think it was widely assumed they could/would get a more established HC, right?

Feels like that athletic department is just looking for the path of least resistance in all things right now.

 

[MakesNoSense]

A big swath of their fans honestly believe they can sway the likes of Stevens or Donovan.

Kentucky fans wouldn't be that dumb, and they're a considerably better job.

This web site had plenty off people stating the same thing.

 

[mattcoldagelli]

This web site had plenty off people stating the same thing.

No. Not this time around, anyway.

 

[MakesNoSense]

Seems like it.

IU has been a sleeping Storied Program for so long that the memory of them being great seems to have faded. Look at CBS' set decoration backdrop for the Final Four. The Blueblood banners - UCLA, KU, KY, NC, Duke and ... Louisville are what is shown.

Historically IU would have been the one up there with those other 5.

Meanwhile, IU fans themselves still think they're one winning season away from permanent glory again. Never mind that they're not even the third best program in their own state any more (Purdue, Notre Dame, Butler)

The state's flagship school has not won an NCAA in 30 years now, the fanbase is still rabidly loyal to the angry old man who won't return to campus, and no coach or season they've had since Knight was shoved out by Brand has really come close, except that one Mike Davis fluke season in 2002 or so.

Meanwhile the fanbase is still certain they're a blueblood. I got "Told" by an IU supporter that our coaching search did not matter to IU because "nobody Illinois would hire is on the IU radar."

Just one example.

I'm not saying they are not unrealistic. But they have championships, we do not. The banners were of all the Sweet 16 participants. I would say they are a blueblood and one of the most storied schools in the NCAA. It makes me ill to say it but I did.

 

[MakesNoSense]

No. Not this time around, anyway.

The original coaching carousal thread had many people saying Stevens and Donavan would be candidates to go after.

 

[GBPillini]

Doug Gottlieb said he will not be the next coach at Oklahoma State.

https://twitter.com/GaryParrishCBS/status/845353815167700996

 

[Second and Chalmers]

No. Not this time around, anyway.

Yeah. Even if the Bennett skepticism was often for the wrong reasons, it wasn't like this board was treating that as a fait accompli.

 

[PNWIllini]

I'm not saying they are not unrealistic. But they have championships, we do not. The banners were of all the Sweet 16 participants. I would say they are a blueblood and one of the most storied schools in the NCAA. It makes me ill to say it but I did.

And this makes me wonder at what point does a program fade out from being a "blueblood," or does it confer lifetime status.

And what about all those near miss programs, like a Louisville, or maybe a Syracuse has been, or a Michigan State has been... do any programs ever elevate up into "Blueblood" ?

Or is it just the 5, or the 6, and that's that, never any more forever?

Asking the important questions. I get tired of awarding IU any status when they've done exactly nothing to earn it for over 2 decades.

 

[Ill in Cols]

I'm not saying they are not unrealistic. But they have championships, we do not. The banners were of all the Sweet 16 participants. I would say they are a blueblood and one of the most storied schools in the NCAA. It makes me ill to say it but I did.

Depends on your definition of blueblood. UK, KU, and NC have been excellent programs for most of college basketball history. Sure, some down periods, but overall solid resume's.

IU was pretty pedestrian until Knight arrived, except for a nice period in the 1950's under McCracken, with four big ten champs, three outright. Before that, and in the 1960's, you could just about call them mediocre, average at best. In my opinion, they have never been a blueblood. Elite with Knight, but that's it.

Even their first NC in 1940, they finished second to Purdue in the big ten. Inflated egos from recency bias, and not even all that recent.

 

[Second and Chalmers]

do any programs ever elevate up into "Blueblood" ?

Duke certainly has. For now anyway. They were certainly not a blue blood in 1990 and probably weren't yet in like 2000.

Kansas, Kentucky, and North Carolina are the three that it's hard to imagine ever going anywhere. But give them a bad decade or so and they start looking like Indiana real fast.

 

[MakesNoSense]

And this makes me wonder at what point does a program fade out from being a "blueblood," or does it confer lifetime status.

And what about all those near miss programs, like a Louisville, or maybe a Syracuse has been, or a Michigan State has been... do any programs ever elevate up into "Blueblood" ?

Or is it just the 5, or the 6, and that's that, never any more forever?

Asking the important questions. I get tired of awarding IU any status when they've done exactly nothing to earn it for over 2 decades.

I agree. My belief is that most people don't add or subtract from the original blueblood list that was given long ago. I believe the list should be forgotten and a list of relevant programs take it's place. That list should be updated every 15 or 20 years.

 

[Ubermensch]

What in the world are the Cal Bears doing? Between them and OK State I wonder if some ADs are pushing back against the carousel and skyrocketing salaries?