Leistikow: What was Barta thinking?
- Thread starter tweeterhawk
- Start date
Last time I checked, there are no asterisks next to NCAA tournament appearances where you were the last 4 in. Syracuse was a last 4 in this year and made it all the way to the elite eight. You make it or you don't. Granted I do understand that could be turned on it's head to say either you don't make it or you do and Iowa didn't two years ago, but with that being said I think the worst blown call I can recall @ Minnesota that year with the Ellingson TO call would've probably put them in that last 4 in category. Minnesota finished 4th in the B10 that year and it would've been tallied in the good win column.
Yes, take out the shitty seasons and he's not that bad.
Ok so add this last season in there and we're at 60%. If you'd like me to include the first two seasons then there's a reason you're as negative and nonfactual as you are. 60% is also what Leonard Hamilton's career winning percentage at Florida State is but I'm sure nobody would call him a mediocore at best coach.
Northside Hawk
Well-Known Member
VCU was a first four who got all the way to the final four. If you get hot at the right time.....
I've brought up the Minnesota game in the past, too. The officiating cost us and that was unfortunate. But the officiating had nothing to do with a critical late season home loss to Illinois, a game we had no business losing.
Your point is that you have to get in to make any magic happen. I get it. But look at how many times we've been dismantled on the second round. 97 should have been enough to beat Oregon in 2012. We gave up 108. Defense let us down again against TCU again last year. And we looked like we didn't have a clue against Gonzaga or Villanova.
The point is as many anti-Fran people say is NCAA appearances. Fran has 3 of them and I was posting to say I could see how there should've been 4. I'm not excusing the blowout losses in the 2nd round, if those were even close, competitive games I'm not sure there would be as many neigh-sayers. I also keep in mind that both of those teams got hot at the right time. Nova goes on to win the Championship that year, and Zaga goes onto the final four I believe. I do also believe that Fran needs to make the dance within the next 2 years, assuming he has a good recruiting class coming, and make a run in the tournament to justify his extension.
lightning1
Well-Known Member
Tell you what, you get the NCAA to adjust Fran's record and I'll consider your argument as something other than a piss poor excuse.
Deal?
tksirius
HN's Love Doctor
Yeah, well if I take away his 2 best seasons, his overall winning percentage is 52% and B1G is 43%.
Isn't this fun?
SteveGarvey1
Well-Known Member
Yeah, well if I take away his 2 best seasons, his overall winning percentage is 52% and B1G is 43%.
Isn't this fun?
No, you can only use that logic and take away their first two years if a coach took over for teams like Duke or Kansas.
tksirius
HN's Love Doctor
I failed Cherry Picking 101.
lightning1
Well-Known Member
Cherry picking seasons = lipstick on a pig. It's pointless. Funny but pointless.
SteveGarvey1
Well-Known Member
More likely you failed analytics apparently.
tksirius
HN's Love Doctor
Is that what happened, Steve? Did I fail analytics?
That was literally your stipulation for Coach K if he was at Depaul why can't I adjust his overall record according to what we had been saying? Oh because finding facts to support that Fran's actually been a better coach than you want to admit would be terrible for you.
Yeah, well if I take away his 2 best seasons, his overall winning percentage is 52% and B1G is 43%.
Isn't this fun?
I wasn't taking away his two best worst seasons is the problem. I took away first two seasons where he had just taken over a poor program (if it's not an "excuse" on the 8th year, it definitely is one on the first two seasons). It took him 3 years to win 25 games in a season which, if you read the thread, Lightning said it would take coach K to get a lousy depaul program to winning ways. Sorry for stating facts within the context of the thread and conversation
tksirius
HN's Love Doctor
Lol they won 25 games, because they made it to the champ game in the NIT. They didn't even make the NCAA tourney. Let that sink in for a moment.I wasn't taking away his two best worst seasons is the problem. I took away first two seasons where he had just taken over a poor program (if it's not an "excuse" on the 8th year, it definitely is one on the first two seasons). It took him 3 years to win 25 games in a season which, if you read the thread, Lightning said it would take coach K to get a lousy depaul program to winning ways. Sorry for stating facts within the context of the thread and conversation
We said "winning ways" not make the NCAA tournament. They won 21 games, and I'm sure you were one that thought they should've made it to the NCAA that year too
They were .500 in the B10 that year and finished in the top half of the conference in his 3rd season of taking over the program where the former coach hadn't had a winning season his entire time at the school. Let that sink in for a moment.
tksirius
HN's Love Doctor
And if they made the NCAAs, they probably would have stayed at 21 wins.We said "winning ways" not make the NCAA tournament. They won 21 games, and I'm sure you were one that thought they should've made it to the NCAA that year too
And if they made the NCAAs, they probably would have stayed at 21 wins.
Still won 21 games...I'm confused where that doesn't define being a winning program in the 3rd season, which was the whole entire point...
tksirius
HN's Love Doctor
So, you're saying that a coach that didn't even make the NCAA in his third year, but had more wins than losses is a winning season? I guess you're technically correct. I can't disagree with that lol.
That's normally what a winning season means, NCAA was never stipulated in the former conversation it said winning which 21/25 wins and runner-up in the NIT in your third season is.
